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

johne1618

Active Member
Well we're not seeing the drone, we're seeing a light (including glare).
In the foreground of Rory's composite picture in post#36 we have a lamp:

lamp2.jpg

If the lamp is (say) 17 m from the camera and the drone is (say) 215 m then if the lamp was on the drone the glare measured by the camera should have a width w given by

w = 17 px * (17 m / 215 m) = 1.3 px

On a picture of the object this looks like

obj2.jpg

Therefore if the object is a drone at (say) 215 m then it is being illuminated by something much more powerful than the lamp in the foreground.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
If the lamp is 17 m from the camera and the drone is 215 m then if the lamp was on the drone the glare measured by the camera should have a width w given by

w = 17 px * (17 m / 215 m) = 1.3
I don't understand the physics and the reasoning underpinning this computation. You seem to be suggesting that for a given light source, the size of the glare is directly proportional to the observer distance? Why?
 

johne1618

Active Member
I don't understand the physics and the reasoning underpinning this computation. You seem to be suggesting that for a given light source, the size of the glare is directly proportional to the observer distance? Why?
I'm guessing that the size of the glare is inversely proportional to the object distance. Seems reasonable to me but maybe it could be tested?
 

johne1618

Active Member
Looking at blow-ups from Rory's composite picture in post#36.

The glare from the lamp is pure white with quite a sharp edge.

lamp.jpg

The light from the left-hand view of the object is a reddish grey consistent with sky near the Sun. It seems to be reflecting rather than being a source of illumination. The edge is soft which might be consistent with the object being a long distance away.

lobj.jpg

The light from the right-hand view of the object is a blueish grey consistent with sky away from the Sun. Again it seems to be reflecting rather than being a source of illumination and the edge is soft which might be consistent with the object being a long distance away.

robj.jpg


I don't think the object would reflect differences in the sky if it is nearby. In fact if it is a reflecting object nearby it would be mostly dark as it is backlit by the Sun.

We need a photographic analysis expert to look at these images.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
I wouldn't read too much into the various colours and lights @johne1618. We're talking about a screenshot of a YouTube video from an outdoor webcam. One light is close to the camera and the other is far away, and who knows what their actual relative brightnesses were. Plus the image of the lamp from the composite is contrast enhanced in Photoshop.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to extract any useful information from the various lights. Probably at this stage it's just another case of "quacks like a drone and acts like drone".
 

johne1618

Active Member
I wouldn't read too much into the various colours and lights @johne1618. We're talking about a screenshot of a YouTube video from an outdoor webcam. One light is close to the camera and the other is far away, and who knows what their actual relative brightnesses were. Plus the image of the lamp from the composite is contrast enhanced in Photoshop.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to extract any useful information from the various lights. Probably at this stage it's just another case of "quacks like a drone and acts like drone".
Ok forget the contrast enhanced lamp image.

I've put this image of the object far from the Sun

1.jpg

into https://labs.tineye.com/color/ and found the RGB code #c9cbd7 in the center of the image

a1.jpg

Far from the Sun the object has 34.7% blue at its center

I've put this image of the object mid way to the Sun

mid.jpg

into https://labs.tineye.com/color/ and found the RGB code #a4a3ab in the center of the image

am.jpg

Midway to the Sun the object has 34.3% blue at its center

I've put this image of the object near to the Sun

2.jpg

into https://labs.tineye.com/color/ and found the RGB code #cac5c6 in the center of the image

a2.jpg

Near the Sun the object has 33.1% blue at its center
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Sounds normal. Probably most objects return different RGB codes when they change distance, when time passes, or when camera artifacts do different things.
 

johne1618

Active Member
Sounds normal. Probably most objects return different RGB codes when they change distance, when time passes, or when camera artifacts do different things.

I've done a bit more testing with RGB codes and the results seem inconclusive.

But the object (or glare) does seem to change shape and intensity while stationary which is strange if it is a constant light on a drone.

Faint ball

faint.jpg

Bright triangle

tri.jpg

Bright rectangle

rectangle.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
I don't think it's strange.

Try this: take something else that doesn't move - ie, a bush or a part of the cliff - and examine that zoomed in at several different places in the video.

Do the pixels change at all? That'll show ypu it's just stuff going on with the camera/images rather than the objects themselves.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But the object (or glare) does seem to change shape and intensity while stationary which is strange if it is a constant light on a drone.

Faint ball

faint.jpg
Those are not the actual pixels. The video looks like this when you zoom in.
2022-06-13_21-50-01.jpg
Picking RGB values of interposlate pixels is pointless. It's a few pixels of light, the dark around it is just sharpening.
 

johne1618

Active Member
I don't think it's strange.

Try this: take something else that doesn't move - ie, a bush or a part of the cliff - and examine that zoomed in at several different places in the video.

Do the pixels change at all?
Good idea but having looked at Mick's zoomed image in post#52 I don't think I have the software to even obtain the correct pixels.
 

johne1618

Active Member
Those are not the actual pixels. The video looks like this when you zoom in.
2022-06-13_21-50-01.jpg
Picking RGB values of interposlate pixels is pointless. It's a few pixels of light, the dark around it is just sharpening.

Hi Mick. What software do you use to get the pixels from a mpeg video? I'm just taking sections of a zoomed snapshot from the VLC media player and then expanding them with Microsoft Paint.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Hi Mick. What software do you use to get the pixels from a mpeg video? I'm just taking sections of a zoomed snapshot from the VLC media player and then expanding them with Microsoft Paint.
If you are making them 'larger' rather than just zooming in, then MS Paint is creating pixels from whatever interpolation algorithm it uses, this data is not "real" its just whatever the algorithm spits out when fed the limited dataset it gets from the small bunch of pixels.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I notice this video was mentioned in The Express back at the time, with quotes from "a popular conspiracy theorist and self-appointed UFO researcher, Scott C. Waring":

"The video is just amazing. It shoots across the water, hovers in place, powers up glowing powerfully, then shoots up at incredible speed. This is proof that UFOs exist off the coast of the UK and even have an alien base off Hayle Beach, but is it an alien underwater base or a human military underwater base?

I noticed that the craft resembles the USAF TR3B craft when it glows powerfully. TR3B would be harder to fly straight by a person because it wobbles slightly as you see in the video. And I heard that the USAF had Project Aurora testing a TR3B in the UK back in the 1990s. So is this ours or is it theirs?"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weir...wall-aliens-UFO-video-proof-conspiracy-theory
Content from External Source

Googling Scott Waring I discover he recently mistook human waste matter from the ISS for "glowing gold objects, some as big as the space station itself. Sometimes they seem to phase in and out of visual, as if they are inter-dimensional ships in Earth's orbit. It does seem likely that future humans could be looking back in time studying us in their own habitat to better understand their past."

It must be so lovely to have such an imagination and live in such an exciting world. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Mick. What software do you use to get the pixels from a mpeg video? I'm just taking sections of a zoomed snapshot from the VLC media player and then expanding them with Microsoft Paint.
I use Photoshop (Mac Intel version, as the Mac Apple Silicon version can't load video now).

It's interesting though - I suspect a lot of people are not really familiar with the concept of the actual pixels in a video (or even a photo). It might be worth doing a tutorial explaining how to look at them with free tools.

You could use Pixlr for the zooming - it's web-based, so much easier than saying "install Gimp" - and it works on all non-mobile platforms.
https://pixlr.com/e/#editor
2022-06-14_07-42-06.jpg

To get a frame of the video - you need to avoid screen-grabs and actually export an individual frame. You also need to save it as a .PNG of TIFF, as a JPG file will change the pixels.

VLC works for this (although, as we saw in recent congressional testimony, it's hard to pause on the right frame). Use the Video/Snapshot. First set the location where you want the image saved, and make sure it's set to PNG (the default)2022-06-14_07-56-42.jpg
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It's also worth pointing out that by the time we get a video it may have been compressed and recompressed and encoded many times.

Phones and other cheaper video devices like webcams etc don't record raw video like a dedicated cine camera or some mirrorless/DSLRs in, so the phone/device is encoding and compressing the video, then they may get edited (likely another compress/reencode) uploaded to YouTube etc which will compress again, possibly by the time we get to see it it's been through numerous re-encodes each time compression artefacts get generated.
 

johne1618

Active Member
I took 10 snapshots from the video in post#1 when the object is stationary and on the left near the Sun and then repeated the process when the object was on the right away from the Sun.. Using pixlr I zoomed into each image of the object and measured the RGB value of the brightest central pixel to get the ratio of blue to red light.

Here are example zoomed images of the object on the left (near Sun) and the right (away from Sun):

both.jpg

The average blue/red ratio for the central pixel on the left is 0.982 +/- 0.000

The average blue/red ratio for the central pixel on the right is 1.07 +/- 0.002

Thus the light spectrum from the object is shifted from the blue to the red as it moves left towards the position of the Sun in the sky.

Could this indicate that the object itself is far away up in the sky rather than nearby over the beach?

Further experiments lead me to believe that the blue/red light ratio from a flashlight at 200 meters changes with the background as much as the blue/red light ratio in the video. So I can't rule out a light on a drone.
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
I took 10 snapshots from the video in post#1 when the object is stationary and on the left near the Sun and then repeated the process when the object was on the right away from the Sun.. Using pixlr I zoomed into each image of the object and measured the RGB value of the brightest central pixel to get the ratio of blue to red light.

Here are example zoomed images of the object on the left (near Sun) and the right (away from Sun):

both.jpg

The average blue/red ratio for the central pixel on the left is 0.982 +/- 0.000

The average blue/red ratio for the central pixel on the right is 1.07 +/- 0.002

Thus the light spectrum from the object is shifted from the blue to the red as it moves left towards the position of the Sun in the sky.

Could this indicate that the object itself is far away up in the sky rather than nearby over the beach?

The pixels that aren't the object have changed tinge too. You're just seeing in-camera processing, that's all.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Cameras like that also often have auto white balance, so something happens in one frame that changes the colour cast is going to change the way colours present.

This is why you really need a decent understanding of how digital images works to analyse from photos/videos.

Colour is an interpretation of wavelength both by us and the camera system.
 

johne1618

Active Member
The pixels that aren't the object have changed tinge too. You're just seeing in-camera processing, that's all.
Cameras like that also often have auto white balance, so something happens in one frame that changes the colour cast is going to change the way colours present.

This is why you really need a decent understanding of how digital images works to analyse from photos/videos.

Colour is an interpretation of wavelength both by us and the camera system.

You're right. I've been taking pictures of a flashlight at 200 meters with different backgrounds. At that distance the light is just a pixel with my Ipad camera. The blue/red ratio of the maximum pixel changes with the background as much as the light in the video. So I can't rule out a light on a drone.
 

LolLol

New Member
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.
1598534969982.png

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

Idk if I'm reading your post wrong but I'm reading that the clip you share is the original video and a longer one? And that the person with the lantern in bottom right comes back into frame at the end of the video?

If thats the case, you do know the timestamp says 17:12 then when lantern comes back into frame timestamp changes to like 15:40ish....
 
Top