The Steven Greenstreet UFO ...

TopBunk

Active Member
Well said @folly4
I think another aspect of this is how oversold this whole “encounter” is. A respected and knowledgable journalist walks all of 5 blocks to investigate what could potentially be an object not made by human hands that is seemingly defying the known laws of physics, yet doesn’t knock on someones door, stop a motorist or attempt to commandeer a long lens or pair of binoculars, or even ask someone else to also capture the moment on their device. Yet now there’s a BlackVault case file and endless speculation on multipul social networks about what this could possibly be when there are many plausible hypotheses, from balloons, to drones, to drone fishing, to aerostats etc. Just searching YouTube for “drone Laguna Niguel“ shows it’s a beautiful neighbourhood frequently filmed from above by human made technology.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
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.
I think science does not work in terms of probability, but repetition. If you discard any unusual observation because it does not match what's "probable", you'll miss a potential repetition in unusual events, that will eventually lead to a new discovery.

I really don't get how you can be so sure of yourself when your conclusions completely ignore the pilot reports and the fact that we do not have all the data in hand. In doing so I feel like you're doing exactly what you denounce from the UFO community.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
think science does not work in terms of probability, but repetition. If you discard any unusual observation because it does not match what's "probable", you'll miss a potential repetition in unusual events, that will eventually lead to a new discovery.
Yes, but that's not what happens here, or what folly4 is on about. All of these events do match what's probable. Looking at an observation and showing that it's not evidence of something unusual is debunking.

If we ignored or "discarded" unusual events, I agree that would be a problem; but that's not what we are doing. Instead, we show that something that is thought of as unusual becomes something probable if you add the pertinent information to the picture.

What you seem to be advocating for is to dismiss that additional information, and leave people their sense of wonder (or fear), but that's definitely not how science works.
 

dimebag2

Active Member
What you seem to be advocating for is to dismiss that additional information, and leave people their sense of wonder (or fear), but that's definitely not how science works.
I'm not advocating for this. I'm only saying we need to keep an open mind and leave room for further interpretations, because of the limited data available. We are guessing on a lot of things, while in science you usually have more solid data to work on. Calling them "Case closed" at this point is premature.

I like how Mick has presented his Gimbal glare theory recently, he clearly states that he is focusing on the rotation aspect of the video, not if this is an extraordinary object or not. A cautious approach on both sides is all we need.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
I'm not advocating for this. I'm only saying we need to keep an open mind and leave room for further interpretations, because of the limited data available. We are guessing on a lot of things, while in science you usually have more solid data to work on. Calling them "Case closed" at this point is premature.

I like how Mick has presented his Gimbal glare theory recently, he clearly states that he is focusing on the rotation aspect of the video, not if this is an extraordinary object or not. A cautious approach on both sides is all we need.
I want to take it even a step further. All these cases are Un-closable Cases, unless we have physical evidence (hardware). Pictures and video and sensor data just don't cut it. So evidently, if there IS no hardware proof (likely), there is no way to prove or to solve a case.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I think science does not work in terms of probability, but repetition
observation of a repetition is that basically all pictures of UFOs are fuzzy, in the "low information zone", where the sensor capabilities are not enough to identify it.

pictures where the object is clearly identifiable are never of alien spacecraft.

the implication is that the unidentifiable objects aren't alien spacecraft, either


I'm only saying we need to keep an open mind and leave room for further interpretations, because of the limited data available.
I get that you want to, but you don't really need to.

Every scientific statement is falsifiable.
But the "interpretations" you want to leave room for are not falsifiable and have no evidence going for them.
 

Rocky

Active Member
Hey everyone, I'll be uploading all my raw photos and videos to The Black Vault sometime over next 24 hours. Everyone will have access.

Until then... any questions?

I agree with a coaxial type drone being the leading culprit. Although, there were witnesses in Los Angeles who claimed to have also seen same or similar object around the same time. Maybe a few of them in the sky performing surveillance or a test?
So what happed to the object? Did it just disappear? Did it speed off to outer space or did it come down to land like a drone? Or let me guess, you don't know and there is no footage of that right?
 

Daves!

Member
I think we can all agree that this is an ufo : literally an unindentified flying object.
The question remains : man made or something more exotical.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
I think we can all agree that this is an ufo : literally an unindentified flying object.
The question remains : man made or something more exotical.
That we cannot identify it, does not mean it is not identifiable. No need to bring in extraterrestrials in the equation.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I disagree. There's nothing to suggest that this isn't man made.
Kinda like looking at the person behind me in line at the supermarket and thinking, "the question remains: human or lizard person?" while dramatic copyright-free music plays in my head.

What we want for a good paranormal mystery is something unexplainable.
 

flarkey

Senior Member
Kinda like looking at the person behind me in line at the supermarket and thinking, "the question remains: human or lizard person?" while dramatic copyright-free music plays in my head.
So you see the lizard people too, huh? :oops:
 

TopBunk

Active Member
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.Screen-Shot-2022-01-31-at-9.48.47-AM.jpg
@sgreenstreet Maybe a drone flyer (or um... like a kite...) at Kite Hill RC field in the same direction but three times further away.

Screenshot 2022-05-09 at 21.04.20.png
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Maybe a drone flyer (or um... like a kite...) at Kite Hill RC field in the same direction but three times further away.
That's a lot of distance for such a small object as a kite or a private drone. What height would it be at?

(P.S. you don't need to tag people you're quoting as the quote generates a notification, but it doesn't hurt either)
 

nmarsollier

New Member
Phones does a lot of picture manipulation, more when they zoom in. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a planet or star, since the sun was on the horizon. IMHO nothing special, it didn't move weird, didn't come out green guys from them.
Why it was interesting ?
 

TopBunk

Active Member
It's interesting as an exercise in collaborativly using open-source tools to do a better job of finding out what it was than was possible in that moment using just a cell phone.
It's also interesting to see how a once trending social media post dropped out of conversation, somewhat like a lead balloon.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
That's a lot of distance for such a small object as a kite or a private drone. What height would it be at?
Well we know the camera and position. If we guess the object was above Kite Hill how big / high would it have to be to appear the size it does in the photos?
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I'd be a little cautious assuming "kite" = small. The biggest are astonishingly big (up around 1200 m2 in lifting surface now) and while this is not one of those, consumer kites with a wingspan of 10-12 feet are not uncommon. I can't think of a consumer kite that fits that image, but of course a homemade or custom kite could have all sorts of shapes. That said, I still don't think this is a kite.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
consumer kites with a wingspan of 10-12 feet are not uncommon.
a 4m object at 7 km distance has the same appearance as a 6cm object at 100m distance (1 inch at 100 ft.). I think this can't be seen against the sky unless it is blinking, and even then it'd be difficult.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
I'd be a little cautious assuming "kite" = small. The biggest are astonishingly big (up around 1200 m2 in lifting surface now) and while this is not one of those, consumer kites with a wingspan of 10-12 feet are not uncommon. I can't think of a consumer kite that fits that image, but of course a homemade or custom kite could have all sorts of shapes. That said, I still don't think this is a kite.
Seems people fly all sorts of things from there. If you search YouTube for that location there are lots of examples. I wonder what radius from there they fly. Didn’t it also go out of sight in that direction?
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
a 4m object at 7 km distance has the same appearance as a 6cm object at 100m distance (1 inch at 100 ft.). I think this can't be seen against the sky unless it is blinking, and even then it'd be difficult.
Certainly... but a kite or drone, if it were one, might be flown closer than the existence of a kite/drone park on a map might imply.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Certainly... but a kite or drone, if it were one, might be flown closer than the existence of a kite/drone park on a map might imply.
I thought the range of a kite was largely determined by the position of the operator (presumably inside the kite park) and the wind direction?
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Don't want to dwell on this too long, as I don't think this is a kite and am only speaking more generally on the theme of "kites may be bigger than most folks would expect" in response to your post #98. But yeah, the kite will be downwind of the flier other than in very rare cases where they can over-fly and begin to glide upwind, and noting that steerable kites may not always be STRAIGHT downwind. (And with the note that wind direction up at the kite may not match wind direction on the ground.)

Also note that a hypothetical kite flier may or may not be standing in the kite park.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
a 4m object at 7 km distance has the same appearance as a 6cm object at 100m distance (1 inch at 100 ft.). I think this can't be seen against the sky unless it is blinking, and even then it'd be difficult.
Here's two iPhone SE 2020 photos of the BT tower 7km away from my position. The antenna at the very top of the tower is 10m tall (It's seen in shade in this image - but imagine it was white against blue sky - to my eye it was clearly discernable).


Screenshot 2022-05-19 at 14.04.56.png
Wide shot
IMG_1223.JPG
Fully Zoomed (iPhone SE 2020).
IMG_1224.JPG

Here's a 10m tall kite that includes a "lifter" kite above it. (there are many more similar examples)
https://www.metropolis-drachen.de/en/Kites/Showkites/Octopus-Kites/New-octopus-10m-round-eyes.html
Screenshot 2022-05-19 at 14.10.17.png
It was windy.
It could easily have been a kite 7km away.
 
Top