Also to add : how can we rule out that it isnt CGI ?
Yeah it's interesting, the high res download is a video file with dimensions of 2560/1440 which is an odd resolution for a video device, also the web site and manual for the device used lists the sensor/video resolution at 1080p (30fps). The video also has an audio track (silent)Also to add : how can we rule out that it isnt CGI ?
Realy ? Where did you found out it was at 1440p ?Yeah it's interesting, the high res download is a video file with dimensions of 2560/1440 which is an odd resolution for a video device, also the web site and manual for the device used lists the sensor/video resolution at 1080p (30fps). The video also has an audio track (silent)
So something has happened to this video file before we can see it, the original footage is something the OP needs to provide at this point as I do not believe the linked file is the one straight from the device.
At the very least the re-encode to 1440p will have generated artefacts.
Agreed on the time, I did something similar with the plane that's visible at 20:54:50I think I have id'd the satellite that is visible at (video time) 20:54:13 moving right to left near HD104459
STARLINK-1478 (NORAD 45755)
This seems to show the time on the video at least is accurate to within 10-15 seconds
I got an reply from the website where it was posted ( they realy are very helpfull and want also our help )
They wrote me the following ( translated from Dutch ) that the poster of the video wrote them this
" The last 3 minute video had the material taken directly from the camera. From Camera to PC. You can see this as the original recording.
Check out my camera's resolution here.
* LN-G3-B50 versatile digital binocular features a ground-breaking 2560x1440-pixel Quad-HD CMOS sensor......
• Sensor Type: CMOS, Quad-HD digital sensor.....
• Sensor Resolution: 2560x1440 pixels......
I grabbed my camera and I have a choice of 5 resolutions. I make recordings at the highest resolution, namely qhd2560*1440@p30
The lowest is HD1280*720@p30 "
A.) There is no indication that its edited the 1440p resolution seems to be normal and users can switch the resolutions. The people at ufomeldpunt.nl also stated that on their twitterSo, to summarize and clarify:
1. We don't think it's a camera glitch because the triangle tracks at a constant 2° per second across the night sky and is unaffected by sudden camera movements.
2. We think the triangle shows up only on IR because the three dots are quite dark, and light pollution in the visible spectrum would have prevented them from being seen in the visible spectrum.
3. The time and location of the night sky footage are confirmed via satellite and aircraft sightings.
4. The angular size of the object is ~0.2°.
a) was the video edited?
b) is the triangle solid or see-through?
c) is the triangle flying or orbiting, i.e. how high is it?
Could you please quote that for me?B.) Post#2 wrote that it looked like its see-through
The speed is slower if the birds are lower.birds .. but at that speed
It was post #5 quote : "Too dim to be lights I think. It goes by a couple of 5th, 6th magnitude stars and appears to be of comparable brightness. It also appears like the three dots are moving a little with respect to each other so probably not one solid object."Could you please quote that for me?
The speed is slower if the birds are lower.
For it to be ground-based lasers, they'd need to be hitting a solid object up there.
What is a "real UAP"?
All we see is 3 dots in the dark, we can't identify anything from that.
Hence the attempts to find a known object travelling on this path.
How certain are we of this? Can anyone make a zoomed-in version stabilized on the triangle (I know @Mick West is handy with these)?. It also appears like the three dots are moving a little with respect to each other so probably not one solid object.
~ 15500 ft, climbing out of Amsterdam. 11.6 km south.What altitude was that at? If it was flying low-ish, a high-altitude aircraft would be expected to appear dimmer. If it was military, it may not be listed on a public flight tracker.
Just to be clear, that's based on the low quality Youtube video.It was post #5 quote : "Too dim to be lights I think. It goes by a couple of 5th, 6th magnitude stars and appears to be of comparable brightness. It also appears like the three dots are moving a little with respect to each other so probably not one solid object."
You're two hours late there. 2054 local = 1854 UTC.Also the plane in the video could be this one :
Ryanair FR714 but correct me if im wrong
Thanks for the link. I think I'm still seeing some movement but that might also be artifacts or illusion/interpretation on my part. Might be more reasonable to disregard what I said at first. Maybe somebody else can do some analaysis on the vid and come to a more definite answer.The original videolink is in the twitter message
Since orbital speed depends on the altitude alone (higher means slower), can you determine a specific orbit from these data (assuming the triangle is in space)?One thing we should keep in mind when we look for possible candidates at higher altitudes is that the speed it needs to be moving at becomes very fast very soon for it to be at the positions in the sky at which we observe it in the video.
0.03/s * 200 km = 6 km/s
Not really.That all seems super fast for sat orbits from what I gather, quicker than a circular orbit in LEO.
BUT for a 40° elevation, the actual height is only 64% of the range, plus curvature (~7 km for 300km distance, but it grows faster from there).I compared some shots from the video with objects in the sky to determine some bearings,
Time Azim Elev 20:53:51 122.75 40.30 20:53:57 139.50 35.67 20:54:01 147.75 32.75 20:54:06 158.00 28.50
you can always see if there is staff online, on the "latest activity" page or the Home Page.Are there any mods online ? The staff of ufomelpunt.nl made a post over here about the video but their account was made yesterday, is there any way to speed up the process ? I got an email from them to ask this . They seem to have some questions for us and have some more information.
They also have direct contact with the witness.
Thats the best route if we have some info or questions to ask them directly.
The account name is oscaralexander.
Thanks !you can always see if there is staff online, on the "latest activity" page or the Home Page.
But for stuff like this you should private message Mick directly, so he will know to log on and look at it. You can also "add" Landru to the conversation so Landru will see it too.
click the "M" at top of page
But that's only the lowest possible speed assuming it moves perpendicular to the observer. When I apply it to that hypothetical plane at 35,000 ft from further above I get a speed of around 950 kts, but the traced path shows it's closer to 1,500 kts. So that's only 2/3 of the actual speed.
Not really.0.03/s * 200 km = 6 km/s
BUT for a 40° elevation, the actual height is only 64% of the range, plus curvature (~7 km for 300km distance, but it grows faster from there).
Think I missed this reply yesterday. Yeah I think it would all but rule out a conventional (or even high performance military) high altitude plane. That speed is absurdly high.The Royal Dutch Airforce has the F-35 Stealth but its topspeed is 1,850 miles per hour or Mach 1.82.
Welcome and we are glad to help !Hi all, my earlier two posts (#68 and #72) were only just approved by the mods and will provide some additional details. Thanks to all for helping solve this one with such tenacity.