The Steven Greenstreet UFO ...

[Easy Muffin]

Your trace of my locations is 90% correct! However, the bulk of my first shots were taken at the RED "X" in image attached. The trees in my shots are the trees by the X.

Thanks for filling in the blank spots. I was quite confident about those four spots but didn't see anything that would help me pin down the other shots and so had to leave them out.

Here's my guess for where the object was. #1 is the park where I started. #2 is the intersection where I ended up and noticed the object moving north until it disappeared. Based on my eyeball guess, the highlighted red area is where I think the object was located.View attachment 49383

That little pin up there is 500 metres above ground, halfway between Beacon Hill Way and the southern edge of the area you indicated. The shaded track is the 737 path across the sky.

 

[TheCholla]

Thanks for the thorough reporting. How did it disappear ? We don't see it in your last video. You say it became smaller and smaller, as if it was rising in the sky ?

 

[deirdre]

i have spatial issues, so people need to double check this... i see the flight path of the balloon/drone/ufo as (pink) and the camera path is in blue.

??

 

[TheCholla]

Local weather data says the wind was ~12mph around 1pm. Laguna Niguel is right next to the ocean where there is always a little bit of wind during the day (it's not called Ocean Breeze park for nothing right). If it was a balloon it's surprisingly stationary indeed.

 

[deirdre]

another possible reason for a drone is real estate. been seeing lately some realestate peopel esp for high end areas are including drone footage in real estate pages, "our" drone would maybe have flown over the nearby park, the school nest door and maybe from that height could see the Water to the left.

ex:

Source: https://youtu.be/y9XtFKHACO0?t=43

 

[sgreenstreet]

Thanks for the thorough reporting. How did it disappear ? We don't see it in your last video. You say it became smaller and smaller, as if it was rising in the sky ?

In the last video, the object begins to move behind that tree. It was moving north (away from me). I walked backwards towards the park where I started and could barely see it anymore. It became very, very small until I couldn't see it anymore.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If it's a drone though, it's rather unusual. No something I'd expect law enforcement to use. But maybe it's new.

Found this article, from 2017, about the San Diego Sheriff as well as nearby agencies using drones. These seem to be in the area the video was taken. Doesn't say what model they use, but this was 4 years ago and they were just getting started.

Four police departments — in Oceanside, Escondido, Carlsbad and Chula Vista — now have at least one unmanned aircraft. National City police officials say they're interested in the technology.

Last October, the Sheriff's Department became the first local law enforcement agency to launch a drone program — at a cost of $125,000 — which proved to be so successful that they plan to continue using the devices. The department has budgeted $165,000 for the program's second year.

The Carlsbad Police Department has four drones — each priced between $1,200 and $3,500 — and is awaiting certification from the FAA to fly the devices, which will be used primarily in situations involving the SWAT team, said police Cpl. Shaun Lawton.

https://www.govtech.com/public-safe...heriffs-department-expands-drone-program.html

 

[JMartJr]

The person at the lower right at the very end of the Twitter video intrigues me. They are making hand motions reminiscent of extending the telescoping antenna on a RC controller (or, less possibly related, a selfie stick.) Given the timing, well after the video begins, I dont suspect that person is piloting the object in the vid. But it leaves me curious... if that person is launching a drone, did they attempt to close on jthe object? Or more generally were they one of potentially several drone pilots in the area? Or was it an unrelated selfie stick or something?

(I am not a twitterer, if there are other videos there I have not seen them but will wait till they get posted elsewhere. FWIW, the breeze and proximity to the sea caught my interest as a kiter, but based only on that video nothing screams "kite" to me.)

 

[flarkey]

Could we be looking at a delivery drone....?

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/06/17/el-pollo-loco-is-set-to-test-drone-delivery-in-orange-county/

Test flights will begin this week in Orange County, which is in the process of choosing as many as 10 restaurants to participate, representatives for the company wrote in an email. If the tests work out, El Pollo Loco hopes to provide the service at more locations, based on market demand and Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

Details on the drone service...

It is working with a drone startup called Flytrex, based in Tel Aviv, according to a news release.

https://www.flytrex.com/

Admittedly , the Flytrex drones look different....

But the Pollo Loco restaurant is very close to the sighting....?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/E...399a49307f85b!8m2!3d33.5544632!4d-117.6863185

 

[jarlrmai]

There's a

Could we be looking at a delivery drone....?

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/06/17/el-pollo-loco-is-set-to-test-drone-delivery-in-orange-county/

View attachment 49394

Details on the drone service...


https://www.flytrex.com/

Admittedly , the Flytrex drones look different....
View attachment 49395

But the Pollo Loco restaurant is very close to the sighting....?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/E...399a49307f85b!8m2!3d33.5544632!4d-117.6863185

View attachment 49396

What an insane co-incidence It might not be this specific drone, but could indicate some other drone testing going on..

 

[Miss VocalCord]

Found this article, from 2017, about the San Diego Sheriff as well as nearby agencies using drones. These seem to be in the area the video was taken. Doesn't say what model they use, but this was 4 years ago and they were just getting started.

Clicked through on some links in that article and found this article where they do mention drone types:

The total cost of the Sheriff's four drones — two DJI Inspires drones and two Phantom 4 drones — was roughly $6,800.

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/top...ietly-launched-drone-program-no-public-input/

DJI INspires:

Phantom 4:

Both seem rather small types of drones.

 

[Easy Muffin]

It would probably be helpful if somebody who knows what they're doing looked at the image exif data and tried to work out the horizontal/diagonal FOV as that would allow us to make assumptions on the object's size. I reckon I could have a go at it myself if this was a traditional camera but I'm not sure how focal length, sensor size, digital zoom etc play into this with smartphones.

exiftool output for 20220130_121317.jpg

ExifTool Version Number         : 12.30
File Name                       : 20220130_121317.jpg
File Size                       : 6.2 MiB
File Permissions                : -rw-r--r--
File Type                       : JPEG
File Type Extension             : jpg
MIME Type                       : image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order                 : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Make                            : samsung
Camera Model Name               : SM-G981U
Orientation                     : Rotate 90 CW
X Resolution                    : 72
Y Resolution                    : 72
Resolution Unit                 : inches
Software                        : G981USQS2EVA4
Modify Date                     : 2022:01:30 12:13:17
Y Cb Cr Positioning             : Centered
Exposure Time                   : 1/756
F Number                        : 2.0
Exposure Program                : Program AE
ISO                             : 25
Exif Version                    : 0220
Date/Time Original              : 2022:01:30 12:13:17
Create Date                     : 2022:01:30 12:13:17
Offset Time                     : -08:00
Offset Time Original            : -08:00
Shutter Speed Value             : 1/755
Aperture Value                  : 2.0
Brightness Value                : 8.97
Exposure Compensation           : 0
Max Aperture Value              : 2.0
Metering Mode                   : Spot
Flash                           : No Flash
Focal Length                    : 5.9 mm
Color Space                     : sRGB
Exif Image Width                : 9248
Exif Image Height               : 6936
Exposure Mode                   : Auto
White Balance                   : Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio              : 6
Focal Length In 35mm Format     : 28 mm
Scene Capture Type              : Standard
Image Unique ID                 : R12QSMF00SM
Compression                     : JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset                : 814
Thumbnail Length                : 52911
Image Width                     : 9248
Image Height                    : 6936
Encoding Process                : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample                 : 8
Color Components                : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling            : YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)
MCC Data                        : 310
Aperture                        : 2.0
Image Size                      : 9248x6936
Megapixels                      : 64.1
Scale Factor To 35 mm Equivalent: 4.7
Shutter Speed                   : 1/756
Date/Time Original              : 2022:01:30 12:13:17-08:00
Modify Date                     : 2022:01:30 12:13:17-08:00
Thumbnail Image                 : (Binary data 52911 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Circle Of Confusion             : 0.006 mm
Field Of View                   : 65.5 deg
Focal Length                    : 5.9 mm (35 mm equivalent: 28.0 mm)
Hyperfocal Distance             : 2.75 m
Light Value                     : 13.6

same for imagemagick's identify -verbose

Filename: 20220130_121317.jpg
exif:ApertureValue: 200/100
exif:BrightnessValue: 897/100
exif:ColorSpace: 1
exif:DateTime: 2022:01:30 12:13:17
exif:DateTimeDigitized: 2022:01:30 12:13:17
exif:DateTimeOriginal: 2022:01:30 12:13:17
exif:DigitalZoomRatio: 600/100
exif:ExifOffset: 226
exif:ExifVersion: 48, 50, 50, 48
exif:ExposureBiasValue: 0/100
exif:ExposureMode: 0
exif:ExposureProgram: 2
exif:ExposureTime: 1/756
exif:Flash: 0
exif:FNumber: 200/100
exif:FocalLength: 590/100
exif:FocalLengthIn35mmFilm: 28
exif:ImageLength: 6936
exif:ImageUniqueID: R12QSMF00SM
exif:ImageWidth: 9248
exif:Make: samsung
exif:MaxApertureValue: 200/100
exif:MeteringMode: 3
exif:Model: SM-G981U
exif:OffsetTime: -08:00
exif:OffsetTimeOriginal: -08:00
exif:PhotographicSensitivity: 25
exif:PixelXDimension: 9248
exif:PixelYDimension: 6936
exif:SceneCaptureType: 0
exif:ShutterSpeedValue: 956/100
exif:Software: G981USQS2EVA4
exif:thumbnail:Compression: 6
exif:thumbnail:ImageLength: 384
exif:thumbnail:ImageWidth: 512
exif:thumbnail:JPEGInterchangeFormat: 802
exif:thumbnail:JPEGInterchangeFormatLength: 52911
exif:thumbnail:ResolutionUnit: 2
exif:thumbnail:XResolution: 72/1
exif:thumbnail:YResolution: 72/1
exif:WhiteBalance: 0
exif:YCbCrPositioning: 1
jpeg:colorspace: 2
jpeg:sampling-factor: 2x2,1x1,1x1

 

[flarkey]

What an insane co-incidence It might not be this specific drone, but could indicate some other drone testing going on..

Yeah, quite a coincidence. Nothing conclusive yet, but worth investigating this line of thought.

 

[jarlrmai]

Sorry I've been slacking on the EXIF, the camera reports the FF (35mm) equivalent as 28mm which fairly standard for phone cameras.

However it does list the lens as the "rear telephoto camera" though, which has 'hybrid zoom', it might require some experimentation to workout if the zoom information is reflected in EXIF or not and workout what settings the photo was taken at.

Some sites give the camera as
64 MP, f/2.0, 29mm (telephoto), 1/1.72", 0.8µm, PDAF, OIS, 1.1x optical zoom, 3x hybrid zoom
Photoshop says

 

[Easy Muffin]

However it does list the lens as the "rear telephoto camera" though, which has 'hybrid zoom', it might require some experimentation to workout if the zoom information is reflected in EXIF or not and workout what settings the photo was taken at.

Yup that's one of the problems I'd run into if I tried to do it. The S20 has a third telephoto lens which apparently these pics where shot with but I've no idea if or how that needs to be taken into account when calculating FOV's from the exif data. Does the telephoto lens even report its values or is the data from the standard cam? Beats me.

 

[Ravi]

Too bad the "raw" data from the phone is still jpeg, and terrible.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yup that's one of the problems I'd run into if I tried to do it. The S20 has a third telephoto lens which apparently these pics where shot with but I've no idea if or how that needs to be taken into account when calculating FOV's from the exif data. Does the telephoto lens even report its values or is the data from the standard cam? Beats me.

Just looking at the image quality on the tree branches it looks like digital zoom is occurring, but the pixel count is the full 64MP so does it rescale? I have no idea what phone cameras normally do with digitally zoomed images.

 

[jarlrmai]

Exiftools output Digital Zoom Ratio : 6

What this actually means I have no idea 6x 28mm FF equiv?

 

[Ravi]

Just looking at the image quality on the tree branches it looks like digital zoom is occurring, but the pixel count is the full 64MP so does it rescale? I have no idea what phone cameras normally do with digitally zoomed images.

You are talking about this image "quality"? The processor of these phones probably does a whole lot of "correction" and color flattening (reducing bit depth).

 

[jarlrmai]

You are talking about this image "quality"? The processor of these phones probably does a whole lot of "correction" and color flattening (reducing bit depth).


View attachment 49400

I know, what we are working out is if the photo was digitally zoomed while being taken as this effects FOV calculations.

I think the 6.0 zoom indicator in the exif means it was digitally zoomed (cropped in camera) to 6x and then rescaled to be the same pixel dimensions as a non zoomed shot.

I did some tests on my Pixel and this seems to hold true.

So this indicates the photos are likely 6x the focal length so 168mm FF equivalent.

Btw if you are ever taking photos of something like this always take shots not digitally zoomed as all this does is allow bad but quick phone algorithms to destroy even more than usual any real detail that your sensor might get.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Both seem rather small types of drones.

Agreed, wasn't sure from the article what kind they had, although it was 3 1/2 years ago.
Pretty moot now as it turns out this happened across the county line in Orange, not San Diego county.

I avoid that part of the state and still get confused about where all those towns, cities and counties meet up and intersect.

The OCSD also has drones but it seems they are DJI Mavic Pros.

The OCSD Air Support Bureau runs the new UAV program, but the OCSD has purchased seven devices that have been distributed to different units. In addition to Air Support and MART, those units are HOT (Homeless Outreach Team), Harbor Patrol, the Bomb Squad, SWAT, and Video Production.

Each division purchased the UAVs under their own budgets for approximately $3,000 each, said Lt. Tom Graham, who runs the Air Support Bureau.

https://behindthebadge.com/ocsd-lau...a-new-low-cost-high-yield-investigative-tool/

 

[sgreenstreet]

Hey guys, if interested, I'll be uploading all raw video and photos to a database soon. Thanks for the interest. Some really cool analysis in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 16321]

I think the ECA IT180 drone in post #2 seems like the perfect thing for a fire house, say Orange County Fire Authority station #49 - which appears to be in line with where this thing was seen - to test to have forest/wild fire preparedness.


Source: https://youtu.be/H_TNYJWwf6w


Apparently been in use elsewhere since 2016.

Some bullet points from their website:

• Wind resistance up to 60 km/h
• Endurance up to 60 min
• Low acoustic signature
• High stability

 

[deirdre]

hhmmm. this seems suspiciously inexpensive. says 75% off.. looks like a scam site. so i'm not linking.
i was thinking HOA security, but if the cost ($400) is in the ballpark...and the fact it was a sunday, could just be a homeowner taking his drone for a spin.

i cant find a proper price anywhere.

 

[FatPhil]

I know, what we are working out is if the photo was digitally zoomed while being taken as this effects FOV calculations.

I think the 6.0 zoom indicator in the exif means it was digitally zoomed (cropped in camera) to 6x and then rescaled to be the same pixel dimensions as a non zoomed shot.

I did some tests on my Pixel and this seems to hold true.

So this indicates the photos are likely 6x the focal length so 168mm FF equivalent.

Btw if you are ever taking photos of something like this always take shots not digitally zoomed as all this does is allow bad but quick phone algorithms to destroy even more than usual any real detail that your sensor might get.

Given something like a Bayer filter array, a 2x digital zoom could be performed with "perfect" fidelity simply by demosaicking at half-pixel offsets, which gives you more actual information than unzoomed (you get all the green cells individually, where most of the luma infomation is). That doesn't even require a DSP, I know smart DMA engines that could perform that "for free". However, you're right, any zoom apart from 2x, isn't extracting any more data from the sensor cells, so achieves nothing. (Some phone manufacturers might even be exaggerating their pixel resolutions using this technique already - check your sensor specs, if they're not explicit about the number, see if you can find the photosite pitch, area, or density, and work back from the sensor area.)

Alas, there's a good chance phone manufacturers will throw other, or more aggressive, filters into the pipeline (such as unsharp, which is probably behind the ringing that's so common in such zoomed images) in the digital zoom pipeline that you'd much rather it didn't do. So even a 2x zoom that gives more might take away more than it gives, and your advice stands as an absolute, rather than one with a minor exception.

 

[sgreenstreet]

The Black Vault is hosting all my raw photos and videos: https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/ufo-over-laguna-niguel-california-january-30-2022/

 

[deirdre]

The Black Vault is hosting all my raw photos and videos: https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/ufo-over-laguna-niguel-california-january-30-2022/

how did you determine this height?

Article:

A lot of folks asking for an update. My current theory is some kind of coaxial drone. But since the object was estimated around 1000-2000 feet up,

Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/ufo-over-laguna-niguel-california-january-30-2022/

 

[sgreenstreet]

how did you determine this height?

Article:

A lot of folks asking for an update. My current theory is some kind of coaxial drone. But since the object was estimated around 1000-2000 feet up,

Source: https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/ufo-over-laguna-niguel-california-january-30-2022/

I concur with this estimate: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-steven-greenstreet-ufo.12258/post-265467

That pin in the sky, at that location, nearly matches my eyeball estimate of both height and location.

 

[deirdre]

@sgreenstreet did you guys feel the earthquake that morning?

 

[sgreenstreet]

@sgreenstreet did you guys feel the earthquake that morning?

Not at all. I had seen one occurred south of us (down near Oceanside), but we didn't feel it. I think it was a 4.6 on Richter

 

[jarlrmai]

I think the ECA IT180 drone in post #2 seems like the perfect thing for a fire house, say Orange County Fire Authority station #49 - which appears to be in line with where this thing was seen - to test to have forest/wild fire preparedness.


Source: https://youtu.be/H_TNYJWwf6w


Apparently been in use elsewhere since 2016.

Some bullet points from their website:

• Wind resistance up to 60 km/h
• Endurance up to 60 min
• Low acoustic signature
• High stability

I can find mentions of French fire services using this exact model.

 

[flarkey]

I can find mentions of French fire services using this exact model.

But we have zero evidence of any US Fire Depts, organisiations or individuals using this exact model. Until we can confirm that this drone, or a similarly shaped one, is being operated in California by a known organisation or individual this will have to remain a "UFO".

 

[jarlrmai]

But we have zero evidence of any US Fire Depts, organisiations or individuals using this exact model. Until we can confirm that this drone, or a similarly shaped one, is being operated in California by a known organisation or individual this will have to remain a "UFO".

This is the fate of a lot of our investigations, we investigate possibilities and only sometimes find a smoking gun, but in the process we rule out some things and add to the list of possible non-extraordinary explanations and some of them are even likely, perhaps that fire service was getting a presales demo of that drone model that day.

We have a known drone using restaurant and a known a drone using fire service in range of the sighting.

And with this one we learnt a bit more about co-axial drones.

 

[Easy Muffin]

As a somewhat interesting aside concerning the various shapes and sizes of drones, I noticed this guy zooming about the LA Coliseum in a replay of last weekend's NASCAR event there. It's got a camera underneath to provide aerial footage.

It seems to be the wrong colour and shape but I thought it was interesting to see how massive these things can be. Certainly larger than I would have thought!

 

[JMartJr]

As a somewhat interesting aside concerning the various shapes and sizes of drones, I noticed this guy zooming about the LA Coliseum in a replay of last weekend's NASCAR event there. It's got a camera underneath to provide aerial footage.

View attachment 49544

It seems to be the wrong colour and shape but I thought it was interesting to see how massive these things can be. Certainly larger than I would have thought!

I think that's a SkyCam unit, suspended by wires over football stadiums, such as LA's coliseum:

I am not familiar with their use in other venues such as the usual NASCAR tracks.
(Edit to swap for a picture that displays properly...)

 

[Easy Muffin]

No it's a real drone. In these highlights (which I don't think are geoblocked) in the first couple of seconds you can see it film the start and in the following shot it's quite prominently hovering over the infield.



They got similar drones at traditional venues but they're not nearly as noticeable in those less cramped environments.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Can you explain why you think it us a drone and not the Skycam rig?

I think your right, it's a SkyCam, here's a picture of it at the coliseum with NASCAR:

One of the more prominent technologies will be the use of a Skycam. An application normally not seen because of the expansiveness of NASCAR usual venues, the Coliseum's confined shape is working to the broadcast team's benefit.

https://www.sportsvideo.org/2022/02...t-with-1080p-hdr-workflows-at-historic-venue/

 

[Easy Muffin]

I stand corrected - should have confirmed before posting and not just gone off my hunch there. Quite lazy by me so thanks for correcting me guys!

 

[folly4]

But we have zero evidence of any US Fire Depts, organisiations or individuals using this exact model. Until we can confirm that this drone, or a similarly shaped one, is being operated in California by a known organisation or individual this will have to remain a "UFO".

I have to say, requiring this level of certainty borders on the absurd.

This is not how practical epistemology works, and it's perhaps THE biggest problem that plagues UAP "research."

Virtually all knowledge is just a probability landscape. If you see a drone-shaped object hovering in the sky, and then identify like 50 models that look very similar to it, and then confirm some of these models are probably in use in that area... While the exact object in this particular video is technically unidentified, the mystery is, in effect, solved. We "know" what this is. It's a probability, but it's a high one.

There are so many cases like this. And the average UFO believer I encounter thinks every UAP has a 50/50 chance of being an alien craft if "the skeptics" can't prove the identity down to the serial number & sworn testimony of the drone operator and 2 other witnesses.

This sort of burden of proof ignores everything we understand about probability, and how it is used it "know" things.

I enjoy solving these puzzles, and enjoy identifying them down to the exact make, model & serial number. But, practically, this a drone. And Gimbal rotates because of the gimbal artifact. And Go Fast is a high & slow balloon or bird + parallax. And FLIR1 is a distant plane that isn't related to the Tic Tac eyes on visual.

If the UAP "researchers" don't use these sort of probability/evidence-supported working theories to advance understanding, they're doomed to get into these same 50/50 "might be an alien!" discussions until the heat death of the universe.

 

[flarkey]

I have to say, requiring this level of certainty borders on the absurd.

This is not how practical epistemology works, and it's perhaps THE biggest problem that plagues UAP "research."

I tend to agree, and without 'proof' in any UAP case the argument becomes a battle between the possible , the probable, and likely explanations. In this case I think we're currently at the probable level, and until we find confirmation of a drone of the suggested type operating in the area I think we will stay there. I'm good with that, but many won't be. I think we should take investigations and debunkings as far as we can so that those skeptical on the other side are convinced. We would expect the same level of confidence in any argument from someone pushing a pro-UFO case.