St Ives Bay UFO On Hayle Beach [Probably a Drone]

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHZn29dqy-I


In the "small, or far away" category this video is quite popular. It shows a light close to the horizon. The light hovers, pulsating, then suddenly moves to the left. It hovers for a while more and then ascends vertically. When it moves it leaves a trail of light.

Pretty amazing, if it were actually way out over the ocean. However, a simpler explanation occurred to me when I noticed the people walking on the beach path. If we think the object as being directly above them instead of above the horizon, then it suddenly snaps into something simpler. A drone.



The light trail, first of all, is just a common artifact of webcams like this. In low light, they build up the image using image persistence. This creates trails around anything that's moving. The effect was responsible for a UFO video "sighting" in 2018, which turned out to be seagulls. The effect also makes it hard to see details of the motion of the drone. You can see the trails from the same web cam in daylight with birds.



And of course, sunsets are a popular photography subject, and drones are a popular way of photographing them, and the Beach is a popular spot to do it.


Here's the Webcam, and what it looks like in daylight
http://www.camsecure.co.uk/hayle_webcam.html


So given this quite reasonable explanation that ticks all the boxes, is it necessary to also hypothesize that it's might be a distant UFO exhibiting hypersonic behavior? I don't think so.

 

[Trailblazer]

It looks as if the group of people are actually down on the beach itself, either in or next to the shallow stream/pool that crosses the sand, rather than on the "beach path".

I think the most obvious person who is walking from right to left near the centre of the frame at around the 0:18 mark is controlling the drone. Shortly after the person stops and turns (0:22) the drone also stops. The silhouette almost looks like a person with elbows out as if they were holding a controller, too.

 

[MatthewPD]

Hi,
I'm wondering if it's more likely that the light has been added to the mundane video to create a hoax. This because of the following considerations after I had a look at the video on a good quality monitor. Also due to the original video being circulated by a certain youtuber who has a certain reputation.

Reasons I think it might not be a Drone, or even a physical light in the video are :-

Camera drones don't normally carry a bright white light such as one being illustrated in video. They do however often have navigation lights of some kind, blinking, but none are seen in the video. Even a camera drone without nav light, if it had a spot light like shown, there should be reflected light in the sea, or on the wet beach, or on the ground between it and the webcamera.

If there's no light reflecting on any shiny surfaces from the light in the video, that suggests the light wasn't actually in the video, the light would then more than likely have been added to the video later.

Examining the video where that possible drone (blob of light) does a superman flight straight up, there is a thin light trail left behind by the moving light, this thin line of light is narrower than the blob of light itself, which to most people suggests that the light trail from that moving light isn't an effect caused by the way the webcamera's slow shutter/sensor has creatied a ghostly image blur from any moving light. This thin light trail being shown after the blob of light flies up, is more likely, a piece of animated light trail, composited into the video to give the impression of a fast moving bright light. This conclusion is based on comparisons with other hoax videos I've seen with similay moving lights, plus the fact the video appears to have first been circulated by known hoaxers.

It thus looks more likely that this webcamera video has been enhanced by someone, to make it look like there is something there that isn't really there at all.
If you check out how a webcamera or any digital camera handles low light situations, the motion blur resulting from moving lights, will be the same width as the light itself that's moving and would be fainter than the original light source. The motion blurs in this video in many instances does not fully conform to expectations for a webcamera video of a moving light.

I've placed this theory on other posts but some people seem to think I was saying the whole video was CGI, but actually I'm saying the light is CGI, either in it's entirety, or parts have been to make the video more interesting, so basically a deliberate hoax.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even a camera drone without nav light, if it had a spot light like shown, there should be reflected light in the sea, or on the wet beach, or on the ground between it and the webcamera.

If there's no light reflecting on any shiny surfaces from the light in the video, that suggests the light wasn't actually in the video, the light would then more than likely have been added to the video later.

The lack of reflection is a good point, although if it was a drone flying directly above the people on the beach, then it looks to me as though any reflection on the wet sand could easily be blocked from view by the grassy slope and cliff that are in front of the camera. There's quite a big drop down to the sand, at least 50 feet, as a panorama view from Google Maps taken from the beach shows. The webcam is at the Surf Life Saving Club which is shown here (albeit with an unfortunate image seam from the panorama):


The people on the beach in the webcam video are only just visible over the top of the grassy slope, which means there must be quite a bit of hidden sand where the reflection of a drone directly above them would be blocked from the camera.

Regarding the lack of flashing lights, I'm not sure whether they would be picked up by the sensor given the way that lights produce persistence trails on this type of video. In the enlarged view that Mick posted above it does look as though there is some periodic change of brightness when the light is almost stationary at the beginning.

One thing that suggests that the light was actually there is that the compression artefacts seem to be just as strong on the light as on the rest of the video, although it is hard to know at what stage these would have been introduced - if a hoaxer had a fairly good quality video stream in the first place then they could add the light effect and then resave at lower quality to make it look more authentic.

 

[deirdre]

Also due to the original video being circulated by a certain youtuber who has a certain reputation

how do you know that " LMX2001" is a known hoaxer?.

 

[deirdre]

this ufo channel asked in comments for the original video. i think it is a tad bit clearer, and he has a few seconds more of the video.
the spot comes back at the end when that lantern girl/girl comes back into view again. it doesnt seem to descend, it just pops up in the same place it started at the beginning of video.


Source: https://youtu.be/43mblAc2Jqo?t=133

 

[Rocky]

Hi,
I'm wondering if it's more likely that the light has been added to the mundane video to create a hoax. This because of the following considerations after I had a look at the video on a good quality monitor. Also due to the original video being circulated by a certain youtuber who has a certain reputation.

Reasons I think it might not be a Drone, or even a physical light in the video are :-

Camera drones don't normally carry a bright white light such as one being illustrated in video. They do however often have navigation lights of some kind, blinking, but none are seen in the video. Even a camera drone without nav light, if it had a spot light like shown, there should be reflected light in the sea, or on the wet beach, or on the ground between it and the webcamera.

If there's no light reflecting on any shiny surfaces from the light in the video, that suggests the light wasn't actually in the video, the light would then more than likely have been added to the video later.

Examining the video where that possible drone (blob of light) does a superman flight straight up, there is a thin light trail left behind by the moving light, this thin line of light is narrower than the blob of light itself, which to most people suggests that the light trail from that moving light isn't an effect caused by the way the webcamera's slow shutter/sensor has creatied a ghostly image blur from any moving light. This thin light trail being shown after the blob of light flies up, is more likely, a piece of animated light trail, composited into the video to give the impression of a fast moving bright light. This conclusion is based on comparisons with other hoax videos I've seen with similay moving lights, plus the fact the video appears to have first been circulated by known hoaxers.

It thus looks more likely that this webcamera video has been enhanced by someone, to make it look like there is something there that isn't really there at all.
If you check out how a webcamera or any digital camera handles low light situations, the motion blur resulting from moving lights, will be the same width as the light itself that's moving and would be fainter than the original light source. The motion blurs in this video in many instances does not fully conform to expectations for a webcamera video of a moving light.

I've placed this theory on other posts but some people seem to think I was saying the whole video was CGI, but actually I'm saying the light is CGI, either in it's entirety, or parts have been to make the video more interesting, so basically a deliberate hoax.

They make very bright lights for drones. Here is a pic of a popular lighting kit. This could be seen from miles away.....

 

[Ravi]

@deirdre

The last video you linked shows the object in the end shooting up.
It happens interestingly enough, exactly in the middle of the frame of the image. Hmmm...

 

[Ravi]

They make very bright lights for drones. Here is a pic of a popular lighting kit. This could be seen from miles away.....

Indeed. And for the fun of it, what our human eyes can see in the dark:

On a dark night, you could even see a candle flame flickering up to 30 mi. (48 km) away.

 

[deirdre]

It happens interestingly enough, exactly in the middle of the frame of the image. Hmmm...

i think that is the beginning just zoomed in... and maybe there is no second light at the end, if he used a overlap transition filter to merge his two video sections together... ??

 

[deirdre]

the motion blur resulting from moving lights, will be the same width as the light itself that's moving and would be fainter than the original light source. The motion blurs in this video in many instances does not fully conform to expectations for a webcamera video of a moving light.

i just watched about 2 mins and saw 4 birds fly by. 3 black 1 white. the motion blur trails all looked the same as the ufo to me. unfortunately i dont have video grab on this laptop. but you can probably see some anytime as i didnt watch long and saw 4.

 

[Mick West]

i just watched about 2 mins and saw 4 birds fly by. 3 black 1 white. the motion blur trails all looked the same as the ufo to me. unfortunately i dont have video grab on this laptop. but you can probably see some anytime as i didnt watch long and saw 4.

Yeah, I just recorded under two minutes and saw some.

Live Webcam: http://www.camsecure.co.uk/hayle_webcam.html

Full-screen video attached.

So the trail is exactly consistent with this camera.

 

[Dan Page]

Not sure if anyone has noticed this, the video pauses at 21:16:49 and restarts exactly 8 seconds later at 21:16:57, this according to the time index on the video. This pause happens just after the light moves out of frame at the top. Did the youtube poster intentionally do this to hide what happens during those 8 seconds? To me, this is likely a drone with a fairly bright light attached, most drones can climb vertically quite fast, easily as fast as the light in the video.

 

[Trailblazer]

i think that is the beginning just zoomed in... and maybe there is no second light at the end, if he used a overlap transition filter to merge his two video sections together... ??

Yes, the time stamp goes back to 21:15:41 at that point in the video (pause at 3:46 just before the video zooms in). It’s just a repeat of the beginning.

 

[JMartJr]

Examining the video where that possible drone (blob of light) does a superman flight straight up,

Or, possibly, flies back towards the camera?

 

[NoParty]

I bought a drone for some elevated still shots, this summer.
Between the way it moves and the built in light, that could be my drone.

 

[Mick West]

Bumping this thread because of this:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed0YYAnPeQo


Wherein they suggest it's not a drone, and something more exotic.

 

[Mythic Suns]

Camera drones don't normally carry a bright white light such as one being illustrated in video. They do however often have navigation lights of some kind, blinking, but none are seen in the video. Even a camera drone without nav light, if it had a spot light like shown, there should be reflected light in the sea, or on the wet beach, or on the ground between it and the webcamera.

The recent DJI Air 2S, and possibly a few others, does have an auxiliary light that might not show up on the reflection of the sea if it's flying over the sea at a certain altitude (legally it has to be below 400ft but I wouldn't be surprised if someone decided to fly theirs about that altitude) and a certain distance from the camera.

 

[Rory]

I'm wondering if it's more likely that the light has been added to the mundane video to create a hoax [...] due to the original video being circulated by a certain youtuber who has a certain reputation.

Can you elaborate on this please? That YouTuber only seems to have two videos (both of the same light) on their channel. Did they have more in the past that are now removed?

Also, the vertical movement of the light in the TV show version seems a lot faster than on the original. Have they sped it up? It takes at least 7 seconds to leave the frame on the original; whereas their version is pretty much instantaneous.

 

[Mick West]

Also, the vertical movement of the light in the TV show version seems a lot faster than on the original. Have they sped it up? It takes at least 7 seconds to leave the frame on the original; whereas their version is pretty much instantaneous.

It is sped up in the TV version. You can see the original is in real time with the time display. Here's the TV version inset.

 

[Rory]

I mean, no wonder they're amazed if that's what they were shown.

 

[FatPhil]

To me it looks like a pepper's ghost or similar. It momentarily dipped, in fact it wobbled a bit, just before it shot up, which *screams* "I'm hand-held" to me. The lack of reflection on any of the reflective surface out there also implies that it's not out there, but in here, with the camera.

 

[Mick West]

To me it looks like a pepper's ghost or similar. It momentarily dipped, in fact it wobbled a bit, just before it shot up, which *screams* "I'm hand-held" to me. The lack of reflection on any of the reflective surface out there also implies that it's not out there, but in here, with the camera.

It moves like a drone. Handheld wobbles are much more significant. And a (Pepper's ghost) reflection of what? How?

It's probably near the small area of water, so it would not be reflected in it.

 

[JMartJr]

To me it looks like a pepper's ghost or similar...

Possibly, but I can't help thinking that if I was doing that sort of technique, I'd do something more impressive looking.

 

[FatPhil]

It moves like a drone. Handheld wobbles are much more significant. And a (Pepper's ghost) reflection of what? How?

It's probably near the small area of water, so it would not be reflected in it.

I just looked out of the window from a darkened room with my g/f waving my phone behind me, and i could see the dot of its LED as brighter than the twighlight scene outside whilst she remains invisible. It was a pretty good mimic of the UFO vid. Light's gonna reflect off glass, how you would *not* get a reflection would be the curiosity.

 

[Mick West]

I just looked out of the window from a darkened room with my g/f waving my phone behind me, and i could see the dot of its LED as brighter than the twighlight scene outside whilst she remains invisible. It was a pretty good mimic of the UFO vid. Light's gonna reflect off glass, how you would *not* get a reflection would be the curiosity.

This is a 24 hour webcam. You never see room reflections in it in other footage, which suggests it is outdoors.
The movement is exactly consistent a drone, stable horizontal movement, hovering, then a perfect vertical ascent
It's a common spot for people to film the sunset with drones

 

[Rory]

Looks like an outdoor camera to me. And checking the site of the company that provides/installed the camera (https://camsecure.co.uk) it appears that's what they specialise in.

One could always write to the surf club/camsecure to confirm though.

 

[Rory]

Looks like this is the webcam here:


Source: https://www.saltysongs.com/st-ives-bay-10k-race/stivesbay10k-183444/

 

[FatPhil]

This is a 24 hour webcam. You never see room reflections in it in other footage, which suggests it is outdoors.
The movement is exactly consistent a drone, stable horizontal movement, hovering, then a perfect vertical ascent
It's a common spot for people to film the sunset with drones

Yup, my suggestion was certainly not meant to try and exclude a drone from the list of possibilities. One common property of both suggestions is that it's definitely near and small, rather than far and fast. Which contradicts the more outlandish claims. However, in the presence of additional data, my contrivance is no longer in the running, even though it is a trivial technique of creating the same kinds of footage. (Was it on the "how to make a UAP" thread? I can't find that presently. If not, it could be added.)

 

[johne1618]

Assuming the object is a drone which can climb at 5 m/s I calculate that it cannot be further away than the cliff in the foreground marked with a red cross. I don't think the object is that close.

 

[Rory]

Assuming the object is a drone which can climb at 5 m/s I calculate that it cannot be further away than the cliff in the foreground

Can you show your calculations please?

 

[johne1618]

Object spherical at 49 seconds in first video in post#1



Just before it ascends the object flattens on the bottom at 52 seconds



Object just a "vapor trail" at 55 seconds

Why isn't the trail pure white like the other two photos?

 

[johne1618]

Can you show your calculations please?

I estimated the guy with the lamp in the right foreground (at 0:07 in first video in post#1) was 1.75 m tall and at a distance from the camera of 15 m.

On a printout of a snapshot from the video I measured the guy's height as 15 mm and the height the object traveled before going out of the frame as 65 mm.

If the object is a drone that can ascend at 5 m/s then in 10 seconds it would go 50 m.

If the drone is at a horizontal distance of d meters from the camera then we have:

50 / d = (1.75 / 15) * (65 / 15)

d = 100 meters

 

[Rory]

On the picture I measured the guy's height as 15 mm

Have you got a screenshot from when you took that measurement? He's hard to see so I'm guessing you contrast enhanced it?

 

[johne1618]

Have you got a screenshot from when you took that measurement? He's hard to see so I'm guessing you contrast enhanced it?

 

[Rory]

For future ease of measurements, here's a composite of the light in its various positions:



The timings are approximate, simply taken from the webcam clock (more accurate could easily be found) and the pixel measurements just for a guide.

I've got the light travelling vertically at 2.2 times the guy's height in 7 seconds (0.31 guys/second) and horizontally at 4.1 times his height in ~9 (0.46 guys/second).

John has it travelling at 0.43 guys/second, so we're not a million miles from one another.

Hard to know exactly where the guy is, but I estimate him about 17 metres from the webcam in my screenshot. Probably between 15 and 18 metres is safe.

Drone speed who knows? But I guess a few different figures can be tested.

That's quite a lot of variables (also height of man). Maybe a range of possibilities for distance from the camera could be provided, from lower to upper bound and see where that might put it?

 

[johne1618]

For future ease of measurements, here's a composite of the light in its various positions:



The timings are approximate, simply taken from the webcam clock (more accurate could easily be found) and the pixel measurements just for a guide.

I've got the light travelling vertically at 2.2 times the guy's height in 7 seconds (0.31 guys/second) and horizontally at 4.1 times his height in ~9 (0.46 guys/second).

John has it travelling at 0.43 guys/second, so we're not a million miles from one another.

Hard to know exactly where the guy is, but I estimate him about 17 metres from the webcam in my screenshot. Probably between 15 and 18 metres is safe.

Drone speed who knows? But I guess a few different figures can be tested.

That's quite a lot of variables (also height of man). Maybe a range of possibilities for distance from the camera could be provided, from lower to upper bound and see where that might put it?

Using your measurement of 32 px for the lower leg and his distance of 17 m from the camera, I would say that his lower leg is approx 0.5 m.

Therefore 1 px is equiv to 0.5 / (17 * 32) = 9.2E-4 radians

Apparently a convention drone has a rate of climb of 4 m/s (see https://www.research-drone.com/en/extreme_climb_rate/world_record_drone.html). So in 7 secs it would go 28 m.

Therefore the horizontal distance d to the drone is given by:

28 / d = 9.2E-4 * 141

d = 215 meters

This puts the drone over the beach

 

[Rory]

I just did some quick calculations too. Assuming your equation for figuring out the distance is right (my brain is working very slowly right now and I can't for some reason get my head around it) I came up with this:



So I guess we're saying based on rough estimates it seems most likely to be between about 100 to 200 metres away.

I don't think the object is that close [100 metres away].

How about 200?

Using your measurement of 32 px for the lower leg and his distance of 17 m from the camera, d = 215 meters. This puts the drone over the beach.

Watching the full video again that looks right to me.

Object flattens on the bottom at 52 seconds. Object just a "vapor trail" at 55 seconds

Why isn't the trail pure white like the other two photos?

Cameras show weird things when they're used beyond their purpose?

 

[johne1618]

I just did some quick calculations too. Assuming your equation for figuring out the distance is right (my brain is working very slowly right now and I can't for some reason get my head around it) I came up with this:



So I guess we're saying based on rough estimates it seems most likely to be between about 100 to 200 metres away.



How about 200?



Cameras show weird things when they're used beyond their purpose?

How wide is the drone?

If it is 215 meters away I calculate that it is about 1 meter wide. A Phantom 3 Standard drone is 35 cm.

Should a drone be a solidly illuminated object that is 1 meter wide and looks like a sphere?

 

[Rory]

Should a drone be a solidly illuminated object that is 1 meter wide?

Well we're not seeing the drone, we're seeing a light (including glare).