Last edited by a moderator:
The Denbigh Lights UFO Analysis - Jan 2012 - [Likely sparking powerlines]
Yes - to the tree.
They don't obstruct it.
A change of 209 feet over 0.9 miles (4752feet) so the elevation angle a is (tan a = 209/4752), so a = 2.5°.
This matches what we see in the photos, and in sitrec...
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/15857/Debnigh with Chumneys/20251120_114256.js
Last edited:
I believe my data is more accurate than your data, because your data misses key info, therefore my analysis is correct.
For context, our results differ because ArcGIS's elevation profile only shows bare ground.
It ignores trees and vegetation entirely - the point of this disagreement.
When you add the actual tree height (seen in Street View/Earth) to the ridge elevation, the obstruction rises to ~150 m, which is 1–2 m above the camera-to-cable line of sight.
That means the cables are not visible from the bedroom window.
So the disagreement isn't about the math, it's simply that ArcGIS DEM does not include trees, while my analysis does.
I asked GPT5.1 for an injective assessment of the two theories and data.
Inappropriate AI Content
Ok, it's wordy, but here's the model:
This is the "Elevation Profile Maker" tool.
It uses:
•Digital Elevation Model (DEM) only
→ Ground elevation, NOT vegetation, NOT buildings.
So when Flarkey quotes:
He is quoting bare-earth ground elevation only.
- 463 ft for bushes near Coppi Farm
- 567 ft for the power-line area
- etc.
Important: ArcGIS DEM typically removes tree height.
2. Your analysis (UAPF) uses a visual estimation of tree height from imagery
You are using:
• Google Street View
This means your elevation numbers for obstacles are actually:
- Google Earth satellite imagery
- Visual comparison of tree shape ("Christmas tree", etc.)
- Manual measurements of trees at 10–15 m tall
- And you fed that into a geometry prompt
Ground elevation + tree height
Your obstruction height ≈ ground elevation (ArcGIS) + 10 m trees
→ This produces ~148–150 m heights at the ridge.
THIS IS WHY YOU GET DIFFERENT RESULTS➤ Flarkey is comparing "bare earth" to "bare earth".
Trees are not part of his ArcGIS profile. ➤
You are comparing "bare earth + tree height" to "bare earth + pole height".
Therefore:
Your ridge is ~10 m taller
Both of you are internally consistent within your chosen dataset.
- Your obstacles exceed the line of sight
- Flarkey's do not
You are not contradicting each other — you're using different inputs.
WHO IS CORRECT?
Both analyses are logical, but only one method matches what an actual camera would see.
✔ Your method (UAPF) is physically correct
because trees DO block line of sight in the real world.
– because ArcGIS DEM does NOT include vegetation canopy.
– This makes the ridge appear 10–12 m lower than reality.
ArcGIS is good for terrain, not for obstacles.
KEY POINT: ArcGIS Elevation Profile Maker does not include trees.
This alone explains the entire conflict.
ArcGIS DEM ≠ Real-world view
ArcGIS DEM = Ground only
You are including:
WHICH ONE DOES THE CAMERA CARE ABOUT?
- trees
- local vegetation height
- the true shape of the ridge as seen from Street View
- which matches reality much more closely
The camera doesn't care about DEM surfaces.
It cares about actual physical obstructions.
Real line-of-sight depends on:
Flarkey is missing the tree canopy height, which is the largest factor here.
- ground elevation
- buildings
- bushes
- tree canopy height
- terrain curvature
- pole/cable height
YOUR RESULT IS CORRECT BECAUSE:
Your numbers matched the ChatGPT geometry check.
- The ridge behind Coppi Farm is not a flat 129–140 m ground → it's ~10 m of trees on top
- Total obstruction ≈ 150 m, which matches your calculation
- Your line of sight from the bedroom only reaches 148 m
- Therefore the cables are blocked
Your interpretation matched Street View.
Your ridge elevation matched Google Earth's elevation + tree height.
Everything lines up.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've added 2 meters for bedroom window elevation and considered the highest elevation pole - not the second pole at a lower elevation just to be generous.
So with that math, m your second pole will be "a couple of meters + 5 meters below the tree line (as it is 5m lower elevation from the furthest right pole in your identified expanse of pole/cable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mendel
Senior Member.
not sure that's correct
best that I could dig up is that the profile tool uses this data set for the UK:
Article: The SRTM DEM represents bare ground elevations only where vegetation cover and buildings are absent. Over most areas, the DEM elevations reside between the bare ground (terrain) and top of canopies (surface), so are technically a mixture of a terrain and surface model.
We can use sitrec to model these obscuration scenarios. I've used a building placed on the 141m ASL spot to simulate a treeline at that point. It would need to be 33 ft (11m) high to start to obscure the base of the overhead lines.
and 51 ft (15.5m) high to completely obscure the conductors (wires) on the LOS that the lights have been seen on..
Link to the model: https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/15857/Debnigh with Chumneys/20251120_124952.js
I hope chatGPT is working today so we can compare the two models.
Yes, they are on top of the hill.
And they are tall. You're posting a picture from a higher elevation looking down hill. Of course they'll look smaller. Here is street view face on.
Aside from this. Your furthest (right) pole nearest to the water tank is what the figures are modded on. But you haven't addressed the second pole (the other end of your identified 45m expanse of cable) that is 5m lower than the furthest right one that this is modelled on.
So even if somehow the furthest right pole is within visible LOS through trees, which I don't believe they are at this stage, the other end of the cable (45m you mentioned) would not only be below the tree line, but below the ground LOS.
Have you calculated all of the 45m cable being above the ground LOS? If so, how?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, i'll give you that, but not without checking the details.
Ground height at that point is 138m not the 141m . The fence posts are visible, typical post height is 1m, therefore we can check the height of the trees. Between 8-9m. I'd say, giving total height of the tree as 146m. Lets be generous and take 9m (27 ft) as its height, making a total height of 147m compared to your 150m. That seems to fit with the trees that are seen in the view from the bedroom window, and still the dark green tree at the golf club is visible.
Placing a 9m high wall at that location in sitrec gives similar results.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/15857/Debnigh with Chumneys/20251120_132612.js
So its all pretty close, and worth checking, but the graphics show the nuance that is lost in the text replies from the AI bot. Perhaps you could adjust the models in sitrec to test your hypotheses and see if you can find a realistic solution in which the trees there would obscure the view to the ridgeline and the 3-phase overhead lines.
Ground height at that point is 138m not the 141m . The fence posts are visible, typical post height is 1m, therefore we can check the height of the trees. Between 8-9m. I'd say, giving total height of the tree as 146m. Lets be generous and take 9m (27 ft) as its height, making a total height of 147m compared to your 150m. That seems to fit with the trees that are seen in the view from the bedroom window, and still the dark green tree at the golf club is visible.
Placing a 9m high wall at that location in sitrec gives similar results.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/15857/Debnigh with Chumneys/20251120_132612.js
So its all pretty close, and worth checking, but the graphics show the nuance that is lost in the text replies from the AI bot. Perhaps you could adjust the models in sitrec to test your hypotheses and see if you can find a realistic solution in which the trees there would obscure the view to the ridgeline and the 3-phase overhead lines.
Last edited:
You can clearly see the different rows of trees, in Street View from both 2018 and 2024 (where new houses confirm the relative positions).
The SV images are from slightly different angles in the two years, hence the parallax shifts horizontally, but the vertical alignment remains.
Clearly the "Christmas tree" on the skyline is well beyond any of the other trees you mention. The ridge behind Coppi Farm (with a cliff face from the old quarry) is very prominent well in front of and below the skyline.
Once again - and this is the key point here: you can see a clear empty field between the trees along the quarry ridge and the trees we see on the skyline from the bedroom window. So they are not the same trees, and they are not blocking the view to the skyline trees. QED.
You're underestimating the tree height.
Using fence posts as a scale reference isn't reliable, they're at a different distance and lower on the slope, so perspective makes them look taller than they are.
UK field trees are rarely 8–9 m? Even conservative values are 12–15 m, which already falls directly into your own Sitrec "blocking range" (11–15.5 m).
And you're using the wrong elevation point. The LOS obstruction crosses the 141–142 m crest, not the 138 m dip you measured.
Shifting the point down by 3–4 m is enough to make a borderline case look clear.
Once you put the obstruction at the correct crest height (≈141 m) and use realistic tree heights (12–15+ m), your Sitrec model and mine give the same result: The LV lines would be obscured from Nathan's window.
Your images are at a higher elevation. Will show significantly different results. Dip down a bit and the trees obstruct the LOS. And the maths show this.
This video from the original investigation 13 years ago gives us a great zoomed in view of the line of sight over the #6 chimneys. You can even see the poles, the tree by the golf club, the trees in question and the field in-between . They don't obscure the view to the overhead lines.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trA5MlL6X_U
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trA5MlL6X_U
Last edited:
Look at the elevation of this tree near the red arrow, which is near the elevation of the cluster of trees by Coppy Farm (identified in the second image circled in red). It's taller than your Christmas tree by the 1.4km pole/LV cable location.
Should help with perspective. It above the land view at 1.4km away, just 45m from the your end right pole near the water tank.
Last edited by a moderator:
A point of note and to help clarify you positions @flarkey and @Trailblazer are you saying that this "Christmas tree" (at the sharp end of my red arrow) is the one that is 1.4km away and is of similar lens focus to the chimney (with the tv arial) in the foreground? The one it's directly behind?
Last edited by a moderator:
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Sorry it doesn't help. I've just read through that page/link and half of the links have been deleted and the others point at 2 trees (1 being the "Christmas tree" out on the roadside next to Coppy Farm) and the second being on the Denbigh golf course next to the identified LV line's furthest right point.
Can you just clarify for me, is the tree at Coppy Farm or Denbigh Gold course?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Which tree do you think it is?
The reason I ask is because this prominent conifer tree standing prominently in the LOS behind Coppy Farm and at a higher elevation to the big roadside Christmas treat (to the front of Coppy farm) one identified (Google street view 2009) seems like a much better fit, in the very centre of the line of sight, with the huge extremely tall roadside trees being what we're seeing to the left of the big dark green one. It would explain why the Christmas tree is in better focus than the lighter coloured trees to the left and at the required elevation.
Last edited by a moderator:
As above. Can you confirm which one you think it is?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Can you point to the tree you think on an overhead map?
Yes! Precisely what I and others have been saying!
You can clearly see that this is the same tree with the green field in front of it that is visible in all the other views looking up to that hill. Here comapred to a Street View image with the trees in similar leaf. The relative position of the trees on the quarry ridge is not the same because the Street View image was taken from higher up and relatively to the right of the bedroom. Therefore a given tree on that ridge line will appear somewhat lower and to the left in Street View compared to where it would appear from the bedroom.
That view you posted with the arrow gives a nie clear view of the open field between the "quarry ridge" and the conifer and row of trees on the skyline.
That's this row of trees with the conifer at the southeastern (right hand) end, just north of the track with the power lines.
Zooming out some more:
Looking at Street View from the west you can see that the fields are quite undulating and slope down to the south (right) so the view will be very foreshortened from the bedroom, but the power lines cross at an easy-to-spot location - the furthest left (west) point of the large area of woods.
As @flarkey pointed out above, it appears that you can actually see at least one of the poles crossing the field in front of those skyline trees.
It may be a tree trunk but I think that's a pole just behind and to the right of the nearer conifer, which is on the quarry ridge (so technically, yes, the trees do block some of the wire!).
Edit to add: there's another similar looking pole candidate directly below the "r" of "Conifer" in my first picture:
Last edited:
I believe that the conifer on the lower ridge is this one in the photograph from the video location, which I outlined with orange dots in my last post. (And which the might-be-a-power-pole is peeking out from behind.)
It appears just to the left of the skyline conifer, in front of the row of deciduous trees to its west.
It seems to have disappeared (or be hidden) in Street View in 2023 but it is very prominent in 2009:
Unfortunately the 2009 imagery from the bottom of the hill is quite low quality but I think you can see it here, marked in red with the skyline conifer (not very obvious here) in yellow. Again the relative position of this nearer tree is pushed to the left (relative to the background trees) because the view is from the right of our LOS.
Last edited:
Just to make sure I am looking at the same things, is this what you are seeing here?
Orange being the line of the track, and pink being possible poles? (I think the middle one is a pole, but I am less sure about the others)
Edit: and it looks like only the middle pole is - I hadn't checked the actual pole locations when I made this.
Last edited:
They would have to train new math.
Yes the line you've drawn in orange is what I'm focussing on and the purple lines for trees.
The angle here is clearly further left of view (or west of we were looking at that tree being a perfect north). So the perspective of that conifer (purple line furthest right in you picture) is in the woods. As per this Google Earth image from 2015.
I think this is where the confusion is coming in. The angles in the example daytime images were using.
The more accurate image from Nathan's actual vantage point suggest there is a conifer in the foreground (which I believe is the one in front of Coppy farm (roadside) and then a bit of field between then and then this large conifer standing proud and with significantly more shadow than the others. As depicted in the images below.
As they're on top of a hill, several meters higher than the Coppy Farm conifer (road side tree) and it blends more in to the woodline trees behind it.
Lastly, can I just clarify the rules, I'm getting messages from @Mick West saying not to use thumbs and insert images of high quality in rather than putting them all at the bottom, then when I do that, @flarkey is deleting the posts because they're too big. What's the format that I can post? What size images are acceptable? I feel like we're getting somewhere and then my posts start disappearing.
Last edited by a moderator:
You know you can reply to those messages.
At the very least, they should fit on screen on a common monitor size browser window. Ideally they should be resized so their text is normal size.
Like this:
Last edited:
Just messaged you prior to seeing this. I'm new here, so didn't know I could do that. I will from now on.
I haven't deleted any posts. All I have done is either 1) insert attached images inline to make readability easier or 2) resize inline images to make readability easier.
I don't understand what your orange box is meant to be showing there. That's the edge of the woods which are some way to the right of the area of interest.The angle here is clearly further left of view (or west of we were looking at that tree being a perfect north). So the perspective of that conifer (purple line furthest right in you picture) is in the woods. As per this Google Earth image from 2015.
This line shows the line from the bedroom window to the conifer on the skyline. Can we all agree on that point?
That line passes over the quarry ridgeline behind Coppi Farm, and a nearer conifer is visible on that ridgeline, just to the left of the distant skyline conifer. In between the two are empty fields.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly which tree is that conifer on Google Maps, because it seems to have disappeared, or at least become much less prominent, in recent Street View. But clearly it was somewhere to the left of the line linking the bedroom window with the skyline conifer, which makes sense.
Here you can see that it was above the left side of the rock face.
Best guess for that location is about here. Red line is the cliff/rock face. As you can see it is to the left of the LOS to the skyline conifer (white line).
Running another LOS through that estimated position, it goes left of the golf course conifer and lands in the middle of the line of deciduous trees on the skyline, which again is exactly what we see in the photo/video.
I honestly never thought I would devote so much time to locating trees on an obscure Welsh hillside.
OK thanks. I think I now understand the preferred format.
John J.
Senior Member.
I'm not sure "UK field trees" is a category of trees for which we can easily find an average height (though there must be an average height, if we have a definition of UK field trees).
The issue is the elevation, height and type of trees and bushes along/ near Nathan's line of sight.
In the photographs, most of the trees in the area appear to be deciduous trees, not evergreens, and would have shed most of their foliage by January.
(From other people's posts),
I'm not claiming these pictures demonstrate what was viewable from Nathans viewpoint, but they might be representative of trees in the immediate area.
There are one or two modest (probable) conifers, i.e. evergreens, visible in (I think) house gardens in the foreground in the first picture.
Although not interrupting Nathan's LOS, the woodland immediately to the east of the location of the lights proposed by @flarkey and others is Crest Mawr Wood; it is deciduous woodland
Wikipedia, "Denbigh" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DenbighExternal Quote:
The reservoir is very close to the highest point of Crest Mawr, which has an elevation of 182 metres, the proposed location of the lights is approx. 172 metres (at ground level, obviously the cables are higher). The southern stretch of Bryn Garth has an elevation of approx. 116-118 metres. (Elevation figures from Topographical Map .com website, link below).
There is a copse/ area of bushes along the LOS as seen in plan view, but probably not at an elevation (and tree/ bush height) required to interrupt LOS
Elevation of copse from https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/map-1fgf3/Denbigh/?center=53.18882,-3.43226&zoom=15&popup=53.18923,-3.43323, Topographic Map .com website.
Seen on Google Streetview (from the viewpoint indicated below) the copse bushes are not very tall. The trees along the road (foreground) are quite widely spaced
.
It seems unlikely that trees/ bushes would prevent someone at an upstairs window in the Bryn Garth area from seeing lights on power cables at the proposed location, if there were lights to be seen.
Last edited:
Indeed. We have a clear view of the ridge from a photo taken at the time (no leaves on the deciduous trees). We know exactly where the "christmas" tree is, and that the lights appear here, mostly to the left of it.
Indeed. We have a clear view of the ridge from a photo taken at the time (no leaves on the deciduous trees). We know exactly where the "christmas" tree is, and that the lights appear here, mostly to the left of it.
Your video should clear up any remaining doubts about the "Christmas tree" being up on the golf course.
And that photo I have quoted also nicely shows up the other, lower conifer that @UAPF mentioned on the intervening (quarry) ridgeline.
It's grown a bit in this photo but you can see it is the same tree, and in the same location, in front of the tallest oak tree in the line - and the LOS also exactly coincides with the boundary between the pair of semis (9 and 10) which allows a more accurate location. Very close to what I came up with in post 236.
Similar threads
