Triangle object filmed / uap or cameraglitch ?

Daves!

Member
The Wizzair was at the time of the airforce looked up no where near the locationScreenshot_20211011-181323~2.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20211011-181108~2.png
    Screenshot_20211011-181108~2.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 25

Mendel

Senior Member.
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.
If you traced a hypothetical satellite at 160 km altitude, how fast would it be?

Article:
Due to atmospheric drag, the lowest altitude at which an object in a circular orbit can complete at least one full revolution without propulsion is approximately 150 kilometres (93 mi).

If we can rule this out, we've pretty much ruled satellites out, unless they were burning up on re-entry?
 
Last edited:
Haven't got much time tonight but something like this

7.jpg

So 10+ km/s

The problem with these constant altitude paths is that they need to lead away from the observer to explain the change in elevation from 40° to 28" so the distances become quite large.
 

Attachments

  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    339.3 KB · Views: 27

TopBunk

New Member
Was was the photographer wearing a Garmin optical HR sensor?

IMG_0127.JPG
 

Attachments

  • 4F67C603-E232-44B0-A176-BB3637B022F2.jpeg
    4F67C603-E232-44B0-A176-BB3637B022F2.jpeg
    250.8 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
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

It's not that weird, my phone calls it "3.5MP" mode, using a completely standard 16:9 ratio.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It's not that weird, my phone calls it "3.5MP" mode, using a completely standard 16:9 ratio.
Yeah it's more common as an option these days but it's more of a computer display resolution than a cinema/video standard if that makes sense, generally 'video' devices do 720/1080/4k. It's a moot point now anyway as we had the wrong device anyway.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Birds don't just "fly south" there are residents that fly around all year, there are birds that migrate south TO the north of Europe and then fly locally from roosting to feeding areas, the direction of flight has no bearing on them possibly being birds or not.

So EU northern hemisphere birds that tend to fly in 'V' formations even when not migrating:

Geese/Ducks/Swans
Gulls
Cranes

3 of them flying in a 'V' formation is not uncommon in my experience as a bird photographer and they will certainly fly at night/late evening. Geese tend to make noise as they fly but this is mainly when they are in much larger groups, more birds = more noise.

If birds though they are high enough that we see no wing flapping detail through binoculars that are quite narrow field, and also what are we seeing of them with this device, enhanced natural light, reflected IR? Both? We'd need them them to be small/high enough to show as points, but then are they moving way too fast?
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
Why not birds: [...] Also, these birds are moving west, not south (hibernation).

Firstly, a warm welcome.
Secondly, am I misinterpretting the plots above which have shown a bearing of 195 degrees for the tracked path? Or do you think those paths are incorrect?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Now birds don't usually carry lights around, but his particular NV device has an IR illuminator with a 654yd (±600m) range, and anything flying within that range, like birds, would reflect the IR light and light up in the NV binoculars.
Could you ask the witness if the illuminator was turned on? If they were intending to watch the sky, they may have had it turned off, as it wouldn't be of much use, to conserve power.

A bird is warm and will thus show up against a cold sky. The body will obviously radiate more heat than the wing feathers do, which don't have blood vessels in them.
At rest, a bird's wings are close to the body, so the inside=underside starts out warm, but after a bit of flying, the feathers have cooled off.
Article:
Hummingbird_Heat_Outdoors.jpg

My point is that the bird need not be illuminated to be seen in IR, and in that case, the wings would not be expected to be visible.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Could you ask the witness if the illuminator was turned on? If they were intending to watch the sky, they may have had it turned off, as it wouldn't be of much use, to conserve power.

A bird is warm and will thus show up against a cold sky. The body will obviously radiate more heat than the wing feathers do, which don't have blood vessels in them.
At rest, a bird's wings are close to the body, so the inside=underside starts out warm, but after a bit of flying, the feathers have cooled off.
Article:
Hummingbird_Heat_Outdoors.jpg

My point is that the bird need not be illuminated to be seen in IR, and in that case, the wings would not be expected to be visible.
Is that the right IR type for the bino's sensor though. Near IR vs MWIR/LWIR
The illuminator is at 850nm which is near

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Regions_within_the_infrared

It would be helpful to know the zoom level being used on the Binos at the time as they have a range

• Wide 10° angular field of view at 6x

• 36x maximum digital magnification

We can probably work it out from the angular field shown...
 

Daves!

Member
Rewatching the clip again.. is it possible birds fly in such a straight line ? Im trying to convince myself that these could be birds but that speed and pace tho.. so the speed calculations and hight of the objects are very important.
@oscaralexander did you contacted the Airforce once more about the wrong time they checked in ?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
is it possible birds fly in such a straight line ?
Why not? Migratory birds have a biological compass that allows them to follow a direction accurately.

Birds heading for Africa would be likely to fly South-West from the Wadden Sea to cross the Mediterranean at Gibraltar. Nocturnal migration is common.
did you contacted the Airforce once more about the wrong time they checked in ?
Didn't we hear the the AF returns all eligible sightings in a 48-hour window? They weren't "wrong".
They wouldn't make a claim what the object was, and we have the correct times already.
 
Last edited:

Daves!

Member
Why not? Migratory birds have a biological compass that allows them to follow a direction accurately.

Birds heading for Africa would be likely to fly South-West from the Wadden Sea to cross the Mediterranean at Gibraltar. Nocturnal migration is common.

Didn't we hear the the AF returns all eligible sightings in a 48-hour window? They weren't "wrong".
They wouldn't make a claim what the object was, and we have the correct times already.
Well i was wondering because in the video it was a very thight and straight line.. i dont remember ( im a nature lover but not realy paying attention to birds alas..) to see birds flying like that. It seems that wind didnt Had an affect on the object.

Was the weather that night optimal to give ( if it were birds ) them a speedboost while flying what could explain to me the speed ?

Here the weather conditions of that night.
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/netherlands/utrecht/historic
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
For sustained flight, it may be generally concluded that larger birds fly faster than smaller birds. A common flying speed of ducks and geese is between 40 and 50 miles per hour, but among the smaller birds it is much less.

50 mph ≈ 80 km/h ≈ 20m/s

With 2⁰/s = 0.035 rad/s, 20m/s puts them at a range of 600m. This feels low for bird migration.
Article:
Birds usually fly relatively low. Most of the year, they stay under 500 feet [150m]. During migration, though, birds gain altitude, and many species fly at 2,000 to 5,000 feet [600-1500m] or higher, using prevailing winds to assist them. A bird may begin migration at about 5,000 feet and slowly climb to 20,000 feet.


On Metabunk, you can't just post links, you need to quote the important content.
SmartSelect_20211012-144212_Samsung Internet.jpg
So, not much wind.
 

Ravi

Active Member
If you traced a hypothetical satellite at 160 km altitude, how fast would it be?

Article:
Due to atmospheric drag, the lowest altitude at which an object in a circular orbit can complete at least one full revolution without propulsion is approximately 150 kilometres (93 mi).

If we can rule this out, we've pretty much ruled satellites out, unless they were burning up on re-entry?

It is not uncommon for small missions to have a very limited lifetime. And thus it will not last many orbits, or perhaps not even one. And indeed, if they have propulsion on board, of course much more can be done to keep the orbit going. But I agree, 160km is rather low.

I still think we should not rule out spacefaring.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
It is not uncommon for small missions to have a very limited lifetime. And thus it will not last many orbits, or perhaps not even one. And indeed, if they have propulsion on board, of course much more can be done to keep the orbit going. But I agree, 160km is rather low.

I still think we should not rule out spacefaring.
The problem is that EasyMuffin puts the object too fast if at 160km:
So 10+ km/s
For that to be an orbital speed, the orbit either needs to be highly elliptic, or the object needs to be lower, maybe at 120 km, because that puts it at ~8km/s?
Which is already close to the Karman line at 100 km, below which an aerodynamic craft is more effective than a rocket. Hmmm.

That's why I suggested a re-entry situation as possibility.
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Active Member
The problem is that EasyMuffin puts the object too fast if at 160km:

For that to be an orbital speed, the orbit either needs to be highly elliptic, or the object needs to be lower, maybe at 120 km, because that puts it at ~8km/s?
Which is already close to the Karman line at 100 km, below which an aerodynamic craft is more effective than a rocket. Hmmm.

That's why I suggested a re-entry situation as possibility.

Good points!
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Article:
For sustained flight, it may be generally concluded that larger birds fly faster than smaller birds. A common flying speed of ducks and geese is between 40 and 50 miles per hour, but among the smaller birds it is much less.

50 mph ≈ 80 km/h ≈ 20m/s

With 2⁰/s = 0.035 rad/s, 20m/s puts them at a range of 600m. This feels low for bird migration.
Article:
Birds usually fly relatively low. Most of the year, they stay under 500 feet [150m]. During migration, though, birds gain altitude, and many species fly at 2,000 to 5,000 feet [600-1500m] or higher, using prevailing winds to assist them. A bird may begin migration at about 5,000 feet and slowly climb to 20,000 feet.


On Metabunk, you can't just post links, you need to quote the important content.
SmartSelect_20211012-144212_Samsung Internet.jpg
So, not much wind.

They don't need to be migrating, they can just be flying back to the roost, I live right by a major migration destination for pink feet geese, they migrate to here but then each day they fly from the roost spot to fields and back again in V formation sometimes in small groups, when they do this they generally fly at low altitudes. Other non migratory birds do the same.

Also just remembered Cormorants also fly in V formation.
 

oscaralexander

New Member
Wow, this topic isn't stalling haha. Let me try and reply to a few of your questions in one go.

Was was the photographer wearing a Garmin optical HR sensor?
If he was wearing it, the diodes would be facing his wrist ;-) I don't see any way in which the diodes could have unintentionally caused an internal reflection that he then tracked himself — especially not considering that binoculars are generally held with both hands.

If birds though they are high enough that we see no wing flapping detail through binoculars that are quite narrow field, and also what are we seeing of them with this device, enhanced natural light, reflected IR? Both? We'd need them them to be small/high enough to show as points, but then are they moving way too fast?
This is an interesting point. I'm no ornithologist, but I believe only migratory birds fly in a V-formation and migratory birds are usually larger than other birds common to this area, like sparrows and blackbirds. Since this footage was shot at 6x zoom, and the birds were flying in a V-formation — thus being larger, migratory birds — we should be able to see wings and movement?

Could you ask the witness if the illuminator was turned on? If they were intending to watch the sky, they may have had it turned off, as it wouldn't be of much use, to conserve power.

A bird is warm and will thus show up against a cold sky. The body will obviously radiate more heat than the wing feathers do, which don't have blood vessels in them.
I think you're confusing IR with thermal vision? In this case, IR mode was ON, meaning an IR bulb in the binoculars was casting IR light, illuminating anything within in its 600m range, and reflecting back to the camera sensor. The footage does not show a heat signature; only surface area.

It would be helpful to know the zoom level being used on the Binos at the time as they have a range
The witness mentioned he recorded this footage at 6x zoom.

@oscaralexander did you contacted the Airforce once more about the wrong time they checked in ?
Nope, but our air force doesn't provide opinions :) They just provide all flight data they have that match the time/location of the sighting, even when it's off by a few minutes. The fact that they had nothing for that exact time (18:53 UTC) tells us this object was not tracked on radar.
 
Just a quick note about these paths I made in GE.

To judge my accuracy I also used the exact same method with the satellite that comes into view at 20:53:58, Starlink-2171. Its groundtrack is known so I could compare it to the path I got from two of my own measurements. It was 8% off in distance (falling a tad short of the actual track) and 2° off in heading.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
This is an interesting point. I'm no ornithologist, but I believe only migratory birds fly in a V-formation and migratory birds are usually larger than other birds common to this area, like sparrows and blackbirds. Since this footage was shot at 6x zoom, and the birds were flying in a V-formation — thus being larger,

The witness mentioned he recorded this footage at 6x zoom.

V flight formation is used for medium distance flights by larger birds, commonly migratory species use V formations but they also fly in V's when not migrating. It's oddly hard to find a reference that states this specifically though most articles are about the wonders of migration, i'm a bird watcher and photographer with many years experience and have witnessed it many times for what it is worth.

There are also species like Canada Geese which are migratory in native Canada but which are widespread in Northern Europe but do not migrate in Europe and they generally still use a V formation when moving around.

Cormorants are not migratory in Northern Europe and they utilise V formations.

6x zoom indicates 10 degree AOV as per the manual, thanks for that I am trying to work out the spread of the objects if they were in range of the IR illuminator.

At this point if the recorder is still interested, some reference footage of large birds flying in dim light/at night would be helpful if at all possible.

Also a known size object filmed at 6x at the IR illuminator range (600 meters) would be really helpful as the sensor dimensions are not available seemingly.
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
Article:
For sustained flight, it may be generally concluded that larger birds fly faster than smaller birds. A common flying speed of ducks and geese is between 40 and 50 miles per hour, but among the smaller birds it is much less.

50 mph ≈ 80 km/h ≈ 20m/s

With 2⁰/s = 0.035 rad/s, 20m/s puts them at a range of 600m. This feels low for bird migration.
Article:
Birds usually fly relatively low. Most of the year, they stay under 500 feet [150m]. During migration, though, birds gain altitude, and many species fly at 2,000 to 5,000 feet [600-1500m] or higher, using prevailing winds to assist them. A bird may begin migration at about 5,000 feet and slowly climb to 20,000 feet.
In the first part of the video the object travels its own size in about 0,065 seconds. So size = speed x 0,065.
At 20 m/s the triangle size would be about 1,3 meters. Is that sufficient to accommodate three birds flying in a triangular formation?

If you go through the video frame by frame there are a number of frames where the camera motion happens to partially compensate for the object's motion blur. The lights seem to be quite small and distinct in those frames. Would that be expected if they were birds?triangle.png
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
At 20 m/s the triangle size would be about 1,3 meters. Is that sufficient to accommodate three birds flying in a triangular formation?
First, please consider that I was looking for a high-end speed to see how far up I could place these if they're birds. They could well be slower and lower and smaller.

That said, ducks have a wing span of ~1m, so it wouldn't surprise me if they flew this close. But I don't know much about birds, so take that with a grain of salt.

At this point, we don't know what birds look like in near IR; if we're seeing just the body heat, I think the dots look ok.
If you go through the video frame by frame there are a number of frames where the camera motion happens to partially compensate for the object's motion blur. The lights seem to be quite small and distinct in those frames. Would that be expected if they were birds? triangle.png
Do you still have the time codes for these closeups? Are they in sequence?
I compared some shots from the video with objects in the sky to determine some bearings,

Code:
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
and mapped the sightlines in Google Earth.
If the triangle is flying at a constant height, the laws of perspective demand that its apparent size shrinks in proportion to its height above the horizon. sin(28.5⁰)/sin(40.3⁰)=74%
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
600 meters is the stated effective range of the IR illuminator so if we are are saying they are lit by that then they are within/around this distance way, they could be further if they are more reflective to IR than normal.

1.3 meters (if accurate) spread seems pretty tight for some of the birds of the size that would fly in V, I mean it could be 3 small birds just happening to make a regular triangle, is the motion always with a dot forward in the direction of travel?

Ducks as stated might fit

Mallard_Ducks_in_Flight_mallard-ducks-in-flight_1_(397189772).jpg

If they are not able to be lit by the IR illuminator then they must be self lit and either be dim and close or distant and brighter to a range of known objects like planes/satellites.

I was reading the manual, it states 10 degree AOV (at 6x) for the binos I am unsure of if this different to what is captured by the video. Are these devices just showing you what the CCD captures i.e. do you see a rectangular section down the viewfinder, reading the manual it seems that way, there are 2 LCDs listed for displays I assume these are in the viewfinder and the 2 lenses do different things.
 
Last edited:

flarkey

Active Member
The Wizzair was at the time of the airforce looked up no where near the location...

In case you didn't know ADSB Exchange now offers 1 year of flight data playback. It displays some military flights that FlightRadar24 does not. You can access the replay function at https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?r .

Anyway... I've checked for the time of this sighting, and there's nothing showing on ADBSExchange that isn't on FR24.

adsb.GIF

Also they offer the download of kmls (click on the plane, button "Export KML" appears bottom left.)

kml.GIF
 
Last edited:

Itsme

Active Member
600 meters is the stated effective range of the IR illuminator so if we are are saying they are lit by that then they are within/around this distance way, they could be further if they are more reflective to IR than normal.

1.3 meters (if accurate) spread seems pretty tight for some of the birds of the size that would fly in V, I mean it could be 3 small birds just happening to make a regular triangle, is the motion always with a dot forward in the direction of travel?

Ducks as stated might fit

Mallard_Ducks_in_Flight_mallard-ducks-in-flight_1_(397189772).jpg

If they are not able to be lit by the IR illuminator then they must be self lit and either be dim and close or distant and brighter to a range of known objects like planes/satellites.
With a size of 1,3 meters and an angular size of 0,2 degrees, their distance is just 372 meters. This is well within the range of the IR illuminator. Would we be able to see more in that case, or are they too out of focus for that?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
With a size of 1,3 meters and an angular size of 0,2 degrees, their distance is just 372 meters. This is well within the range of the IR illuminator. Would we be able to see more in that case, or are they too out of focus for that

Are you saying 1.3 meters for the triangle formation i.e. corner to corner? Can we get a size for the triangle at 300 -> 600 meters?
 

Itsme

Active Member
Do you still have the time codes for these closeups? Are they in sequence?

If the triangle is flying at a constant height, the laws of perspective demand that its apparent size shrinks in proportion to its height above the horizon. sin(28.5⁰)/sin(40.3⁰)=74%
I do not have the exact time codes but the frames are easy to find if you go through the video frame by frame.

I took the first frame where the object appears and the last frame where I could still discern it. The size shrinkage seems to be roughly the 74% you calculated:
Screenshot 2021-10-13 120239.jpg
Are you saying 1.3 meters for the triangle formation i.e. corner to corner? Can we get a size for the triangle at 300 -> 600 meters?

These are the calculations I used:

The speed can be derived from the fact that the ‘lights-triangle’ travels its own size in about 0.065 seconds (about two frames in the 30 fps mp4). So, given a size in meters, the speed in kmph will be 3,6*size/0.065.


The distance can be derived from its angular size. The angular size of the ‘lights-triangle’ has been determined already and is 0,2 degrees, or 0,00349 radians. So, given a size in meters, the distance in meters will be size/0,00349.


The altitude is a bit more complicated if the Earth’s curvature is to be taken into account. Neglecting any effects of atmospheric refraction (which leads to a slightly higher observed altitude than the actual altitude), the altitude can be calculated as follows:
Screenshot 2021-10-12 151847.png

Twice the distance means twice the size but also twice the speed, which seems to be too high for cruising birds(?).
 

Daves!

Member
Someone on the dutch website made a remarkble observation of the video he zoomed in and wrote somehow he could see flapping and believe it could be birds.

I dont know how to insert here the gif he made so im putting the link of the gif. Sorry if it goes against the rules ! Blame it on me.

There is a lot of noise and the gif is up for discussion I think. But i found it interresting how he managed to zoom in so closely.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...00129d39fc264d7ecd057255b75f92bf4ba1efb96.gif
 

Itsme

Active Member
Someone on the dutch website made a remarkble observation of the video he zoomed in and wrote somehow he could see flapping and believe it could be birds.

I dont know how to insert here the gif he made so im putting the link of the gif. Sorry if it goes against the rules ! Blame it on me.

There is a lot of noise and the gif is up for discussion I think. But i found it interresting how he managed to zoom in so closely.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...00129d39fc264d7ecd057255b75f92bf4ba1efb96.gif
The object constantly blurs due to camera and object movement, atmospheric disturbances, imaging artefacts etc..
Could be a case of "bird pareidolia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia).
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Someone on the dutch website made a remarkble observation of the video he zoomed in and wrote somehow he could see flapping and believe it could be birds.

I dont know how to insert here the gif he made so im putting the link of the gif.
e16f51bd7f50902df00c2b800129d39fc264d7ecd057255b75f92bf4ba1efb96.gif
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The distance can be derived from its angular size. The angular size of the ‘lights-triangle’ has been determined already and is 0,2 degrees, or 0,00349 radians
0.2⁰ is a very rough estimate, not an accurate determination; at best, it represents 0.15-0.25⁰. Converting this to a 3-digit number looks like more precision than there actually is.
With a picture of the triangle against the stars, and a star chart, I expect at least a double-digit determination could be made.
The speed can be derived from the fact that the ‘lights-triangle’ travels its own size in about 0.065 seconds (about two frames in the 30 fps mp4)
Again, 2 frames is a low-precision number, as is the 2⁰/s angular speed I have been working with. The most precise numbers posted to the thread so far are @EasyMuffin's azimuth/elevation data, which is why I've been asking EM to confirm my estimate for the potential satellite speed.

These are all very rough estimates to narrow down the possibilities.
And you know something's up with the accuracy when the same assumed speed can result in range estimates of 600 or 370m.

We also do not have any confirmation yet that the illuminator was actually turned on.
 

Itsme

Active Member
Hmmm... it does look a bit like birds if you fiddle a bit with gamma, contrast, brightness:
Screenshot 2021-10-13 140624.jpgScreenshot 2021-10-13 140712.jpgScreenshot 2021-10-13 140803.jpgScreenshot 2021-10-13 140837.jpg

A tight (1,3 m) formation of ducks would be in the speed range (20 m/s) and within the IR illuminator range (370 m), but probably slightly out of focus.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Some updates. I asked in the Heavens Above (satellite tracking sub reddit)

https://www.reddit.com/r/heavensabove/

Not much info there either way but did suggest if we had ruled out birds..

Luna Optics say they use Sony Exmor sensors however there is a lot, only some will match but there is a still a lot. I have emailed to ask which sensor they use or just if they can give the physical dimensions.

https://www.lunaoptics.com/nvtechnology.html

All of Luna Optics digital day/night vision devices employ various SONY Exmor™ High-Definition CMOS Sensors, which feature low video noise and low power consumption, while providing excellent low-light sensitivity and high-speed image processing. (Exmor is a trademark of SONY Corporation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmor
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Red Triangle on face of the moon Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
Daves! Need help triangle uap/ufo Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
D 2018 Pentagon Triangle Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
A Triangle UFO over Shanghai, June 2021 UFOs and Aliens 27
D Space X Triangle Shaped UO Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Todd Feinman Triangle UFO footage from the UK Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Jesse3959 Triangle UFO Laredo, Texas - Recreated using a Drone UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 1
Mick West Explained: Floating Triangle UFO in Buenos Aires Google Maps [Bridge] UFOs and Aliens 0
Christophe Isbert The Mississippi Triangle Mystery (status: solved or probably solved) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
H Triangle in Mars Curiosity Image [Panorama Stitching Artifact] UFOs and Aliens 4
Trailblazer Contrail triangle, Versailles, Dec 28 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Alien Base on the Moon, Triangle of Dots [photo artifact] UFOs and Aliens 56
Mick West Saturn + Spica + Mars = Triangle UFO? UFOs and Aliens 6
Mick West Debunked: Fake photo of triangle UFO and contrail Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 13
N Explained: "Jellyfish object" video in Russia [Rocket Launch] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
J Tic-tac object flying sideways? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
LorentzHall Black Narrow Aircraft-Like Object (With Stubby Wings?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
LorentzHall White Flying Object Over US Navy base in Japan (July 2021) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
SkepticSteve Alleged DHS Employee Leaks of filmed UAPs. A-10 "Chased" by Object UFOs and Aliens 34
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
P Black cylindrical object floating in the sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
jarlrmai MUFON case 115206 - [OBJECT] CROSSED OVER I-10 FREEWAY LEAVING A SHADOW OF ITS SHAPE/SIZE Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
jackfrostvc Spherical Object In Map View, Nellis Air Force Range, Nevada [A Bright Patch of Ground] UFOs and Aliens 11
Mick West Claim that the Nimitz FLIR1 object could not be a plane because it would have been Identified UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 54
Mick West Flying Object Timelapse - Cape Hatteras Lighthouse Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 39
Swifty "Disc shaped" object in Antarctica on Google Earth UFOs and Aliens 3
B Odd, shiny rectangular object over Montréal's suburbs (Drone?/Balloon?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
M Fast moving object "intersecting clouds" in Hungarian YouTuber's video [Insect] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
S Need help to identify an object in the sea Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
Getoffthisplanet International Space Station (ISS) Live Stream from 2/21/2020 - Unidentified Object Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Mick West UFO Billboard in Montana Uses Photo of Identified Flying Object UFOs and Aliens 4
Mick West Explained: Mysterious Red Planet Like Object Filmed Next To The Moon. Atglen [Reflection] UFOs and Aliens 0
Snake Plisken Dark irregular shaped object drifting in the sky [Castle Mylar Party Balloon] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 52
Mick West Earth's Radius Calculator (from the amount a distant object is obscured) Tools for Investigating and Debunking 0
Royce Malphrus What is this? [unidentified object in photo from vehicle: lamp post] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 814
Marine0811 Unknown flying insect or object Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Mick West Debunked: First object teleported to Earth's orbit [Quantum Communication] Science and Pseudoscience 11
Radapox Peru gas station object (blue "walking" blob) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
M Physical Object or Camera Artifcat? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Mick West Explained: Large Cigar Shaped Object Caught Shooting Into Storm Cloud In Spain [Reflection] UFOs and Aliens 12
Jason Debunked: Planet sized object (ALIENS) caught by SOHO UFOs and Aliens 10
derrick06 Mystery object in Ibiza Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 4
Jenna Object In Sky [Internal Lens Reflection, iPhone 5] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 34
jaydeehess Puerto Vallarta Feb.2014 object Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 18
Mark Dobson Help identifying this object [Bolide / Meterorite] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 10
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top