UFO Swarm - Springfield, Massachusetts [likely Starlink]

[Mick West]

Can sitrec or similar predict the best times for this videographer to catch a starlink pass in the next week, say, ask them to record THAT, see if it looks to them like the UFOs? I hereby confess I have not sat down and learned how to actually use these cool tools Mick has made!

You'd just set the camera to your location (which should be automatic, or press "L" to drag it, or enter lat/lon)
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/
Then change the time (easiest to just drag the minutes slider) until you get a bunch of lines at the same time.

Coincidentally, that's the situation right now at my house. I just don't have a clear view of the horizon.

You can also adjust the Sat Brightness and cut-off to make the flaring satellites clearer (I should probably adjust the defaults a bit)

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I've been looking at this again. I think Cor Caroli is a better fit than Alkaid. I'm going to edit my previous post to correct the error.

HIP 64540 is just coming out from behind the wire, with 20 Canum Venaticorum still behind the wire.

Ursa Major is entirely hidden behind the clouds.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah this is hard, the quality is so low, the cloud cover means only intermittent flares show through and unpredictably as well as the cable occluding things.

As well as not being 100% sure the time stamp is accurate.

Sitrec doesn't seem to have HIP64540 so I can't get the viewport scaled either.

 

[jarlrmai]

okay I found HIP 64540 in sitrec

 

[jarlrmai]

I have to rotate the camera a lot ot get sitrec to have HIP 64540 over Cor Caroli as per the video..

 

[jarlrmai]

I give up, if anyone manages to come up with a correlation on this they will have done very well.

I'm not sure either the time and/or the reference stars are correct to be honest and there's not a contiguous enough static shot in the video to work things out. It's interrupted by zooms, movement and the cloud variation causing things to pop out of visibility.

 

[jarlrmai]

https://nightfoxstore.com/products/nightfox-swift-2-pro-night-vision-goggles

These appear to be the device, 54 degree viewing angle I assume that is horizontal..

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

There are so many satellites in this stream that it's difficult to tell one from another.

In comparing relative positions of individual satellites to individual stars, Sitrec is very sensitive to latitude and longitude. Changing the lat by one minute changes things significantly when looking at things at this level of detail. I used the coordinates for the house of the witness... which I will not share publicly.

Sitrec doesn't seem to show ALL satellites, especially the "retrograde" ones. I'm assuming data bases are not complete when it comes to "spy satellites" and so on.

How accurate is the data base down to such fine detail? I mean these Star Link satellites change relative positions all the time, don't they? One can update Sitrec from a database for the time and date it is set to... but is the database for all of these satellites accurate down to seconds of altitude and azimuth in the night sky?

Finding where the main "traffic zone" in relation to the stars is the best method. As the Earth rotates, the stars (the Celestial Sphere) move across our sky. But satellites orbiting our Earth maintain their orbit relative to the surface of the Earth, due to the effects of inertia. (Something Flat Earth Believers have never understood.) As well, the most visible satellites are the ones which are at the proper angle between the Sun rays and the observer such that the observer sees specular reflections of the Sun off the satellite structure. Or diffuse reflections for that matter. The satellite has to be in the right position to be lit up by the Sun. Like the top of a mountain or an airplane at sundown. At some point it passes into the Earth's shadow and disappears.

The result is that the "traffic zone" of the most visible satellites moves across the Celestial Sphere as the Earth rotates.

While an individual satellite may be within the "Flare Zone," this just means that it has the potential to display a strong flare due to the observer seeing a specular reflection of the Sun off a particular, shiny, part of the satellite. But this depends on how exactly the satellite is positioned. And the design of satellite. Does it have flat shiny surfaces?

To illustrate; a distant someone holding a hand mirror may have the potential to knock your eye out with a flash of the Sun off his mirror. But... the mirror itself must be held at just at the right angle. If the mirror-like part of an individual satellite isn't "held" just right... it won't send a "flare" to the observer.

Many of the satellites in the "flare zone" will flare... but not all of them will. But Sitrec shows all of the satellites in the flare zone as flaring. Once again, this is just a potential, not a certainty. No data base could possibly predict which satellites are in just the right attitude.

Finding where the "highway" of these numerous flaring satellites, (and diffusely lit satellites), is the best way of determining the likelihood that we are looking at flaring satellites in these videos.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

For example.

What can we say about this flaring satellite? Note the time stamps. This covers about 6 seconds. 10:47:12 to 10:47:18 EDT.

It could be this satellite here that I've labeled in this frame from Sitrec. (The yellow band on the globe is the "Flare Zone" for observers along this band. The red arrow indicates where the Observer was standing - in Amostown, Massachusetts. Where the yellow band and the red arrow intersect is the Observer's local Flare Zone. Limited by the curvature of the Earth, of course. And by the geometry of the situation. The arrow with the "N" at the bottom of the frame, and the number 317.1 degrees indicates the direction the observer would look to see the flaring band. 317.1 degrees indicates NW... which is where the mysterious lights are visible in the video.)

Looks right. But what if the time on the video is off by even a few seconds? What if the database is just a tiny bit off? Or the Lat & Long that I've put into Sitrec? Or...?

The meaningful factor: Where is the "highway" of flaring satellites in relation to the stars visible in the video? And what direction are they going?

This video shows flaring satellites passing through the constellation of Canes Venatici... to the "left" of Cor Caroli and β Canum Venaticorum. Sitrec, set to the proper Lat & Long and time, also shows the stream of flaring satellites passing through this area.

And they are going in this direction... Just as the satellites in the video are.

That's a significant bit of evidence. You have to be pretty stubborn not to accept that these "Bright Little Guys" are flaring satellites.

An analogy: A witness stands on a hill in the desert night after night. He has dozens of videos of mysterious white and red lights moving slowly across the valley, miles away. It's been clearly established that his camera is pointed at an Interstate Highway. Do we have to assign a license plate to every light to be confident that these mysterious lights are the headlights and taillights of vehicles on a distant highway?

 

[FatPhil]

View attachment 71528That's a significant bit of evidence. You have to be pretty stubborn not to accept that these "Bright Little Guys" are flaring satellites.

Indeed. Wow, that view makes the satellites seem even denser than I imagined. "Which bit of the sky were you looking at such that these satellites weren't in view?" becomes all the more pertinent over the years. And this is a unidirectional trend for the coming decade too. (Until Kessler...)

 

[jarlrmai]

When we've synced videos before it's been a bit of searching around to find distinct patterns of satellites that match. There's just not enough data here to give that.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Here's a wide view of the sky. I've labeled Kochab in the Little Dipper and Cor Caroli in Canes Venatici. Compare to the Observer's sky.

There's a flaring satellite in this frame to the "left" of Cor Caroli. This is the area we see all of the mysterious lights. There happens to be a break in the clouds in that area.

The Flare Zone is where they may flare very brightly when there's a specular (mirror-like) reflection off a shiny part of the satellite. They may be visible more dimly due to diffuse reflections of the Sun.

You can see many dimly lit satellites at night, due to diffuse sunlight reflections lighting them up. They disappear when they pass into the Earth's shadow. You may see ONE surprising flash as it passes by. (There's even a scene in Easy Rider some people here may remember. Dennis Hopper sees a flash in the sky, which then goes wizzing off. Wow, man.)

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

An example of the difference between diffuse sunlight reflections and specular reflections.

The entire landscape is sunlit, of course. But what about the flashes?

Most people assume these flashes were a happy accident. It shows a very interesting and surprising aspect of what it would really look like. The morning Sun winking off brass buttons and other equipment.

But, sorry, some of the "soldiers" are waving hand mirrors about. It was planned. You can see some of them wiggling mirrors at waist level and sending along fairly bright reflections of the sky. There's one guy who's waving his mirror over his head like a kid waving bye-bye.


Even if you have a modern aluminized glass mirror in your hand, the angles have to be just right. The same thing applies to satellites.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You'd just set the camera to your location (which should be automatic, or press "L" to drag it, or enter lat/lon)
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/
Then change the time (easiest to just drag the minutes slider) until you get a bunch of lines at the same time.
View attachment 71506

Coincidentally, that's the situation right now at my house. I just don't have a clear view of the horizon.

You can also adjust the Sat Brightness and cut-off to make the flaring satellites clearer (I should probably adjust the defaults a bit)

View attachment 71507

What's the difference between the yellow colored satellites and the red?

 

[Mick West]

What's the difference between the yellow colored satellites and the red?

Red ones are a newer type that might have different reflective properties.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I want to add my plea to moderate this trend of making "Star Link" a synonym for satellite.

Is it an all mammals are dolphins kind of thing?

All Star Link satellites are satellites
All satellites are Star Link. (affirming the consequent)

Or is it a all an all adhesive bandages are Band-Aids kind of thing? (proprietary eponym)

Anyway... there are other satellites up there.

This repeating witness case doesn't warrant being called a Star Link sighting. If we want to give it a name, it could be "Flaring Satellites." I've asked the witness a question about what he means by "The Triangle Turn." It seems that, in general, he's getting confused about the motions of these lights in relation to each other. More about that later. But it's becoming clear that he's seeing satellites taking different paths and inferring something about that. In other words, unrelated satellites in different orbits. The common factor is that they are flaring brightly.

Re: Specifically Star LInk sightings...

There are three types:

1. Newly deployed and bunched up train. Witness mistakes the train for a single solid object.
2. Still fresh but somewhat more strung out train. The witness describes it as a line of bright objects.
3. Older train; becoming much more spread out. The witness describes seeing individual, but related objects, following the same path.

Or...
1. The Streak
2. The String of Pearls
3. The Swarm

The Streak is most likely to spawn a gigantic oval mothership report.

The String of Pearls is most likely to be recognized, nowadays, for what it is. The problem with that familiarity is that witnesses think that all Star Link sightings must look like the String of Pearls. If they don't see the String of Pearls, it can't be Star Link because... "I know what Star Link looks like."

The Swarm is the type most likely to be reported as a Racetrack sighting. Although the String of Pearls can also be reported as such when conditions are just right.

The common factor is a true Star Link sighting is: It's a newly deployed train of Star Link satellites.

This witness is correct in that his repeated sightings don't follow any of the patterns. This really isn't a Star Link sighting case.


Maybe a lot of the cases we've been calling Star Link should be called Flaring Satellites or Flaring Band sightings. There are so many satellites in orbit now that the flaring band will always be full. The sky is completely full of satellites, but the witness is looking at the ones that are flaring.

The important factor here is that the witness is looking at the part of the sky which constitutes his local satellite flaring band.

Analogy: A backyard is full of flying mosquitoes. But the witness only sees the bugs caught in the beam of the floodlight on the wall. That's his personal flaring mosquito band.



Lately, even the unique patterns Star Link may appear in may no longer be unique. Guowang is the Chinese version of Star Link. I'm assuming they are deployed in a similar way. Don't know yet.

 

[jarlrmai]

I'm not really sure what you mean, by far the most commonly seen and remarked upon satellite flares are Starlink they account for almost all sightings resulting from satellites in recent times.

This specific case/cases is almost certainly your case 3 (which by the way do NOT always follow the same path)

Except here the witness is generally filming when here's some partial / thin cloud cover, and they are assuming this means total cloud cover.

The partial cloud cover means only a small number of flares can be seen and possibly only because of the night vision device and they vanish when they might not otherwise, showing either when they are bright enough to shine through the thin clouds and be picked up by the goggles or when coinciding with a gap or thinner part in the clouds.

If there were no clouds likely we could match to specific satellites with accurate enough time, of course then the witness might agree that in those instances they are satellites but opine that the other ones when there are clouds are not and then we are left trying to match cloud gaps up and talk about translucent cloud cover and light amplification night vision devices which is a more difficult conversation.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I disagree about that. He's really struck by the fact that they are following different paths. That's one of his two main proofs that they can't be Star Link... or satellites in general.

(To be fair, I've edited my post repeatedly. My usual bad habit.)

He has many videos. Some with a clear sky and some with a partially cloudy sky. The importance of the later is not what the satellites look like, really. He's insisting that these can't be satellites because they are "under the clouds." Maybe at 10,000 feet or lower. He's pretending (?) that he's seeing them under a fully cloud covered part of the sky.

That's his other proof. They are in the atmosphere. Not in space.

I'll get more into what he really means by "the triangle turn" and the importance of that. I was wrong in assuming he was describing the path of individual satellites. Before I talk about it further, I want to really get a clarification from the witness himself.

 

[flarkey]

tring of Pearls. If they don't see the String of Pearls, it can't be Star Link because... "I know what Star Link looks like."

The Swarm is the type most likely to be reported as a Racetrack sighting. Although the String of Pearls can also be reported as such when conditions are just right.

This witness is correct in that his repeated sightings don't follow any of these patterns. This really isn't a Star Link sighting case.

I'd suggest that the "Swarm" and "Racetrack" are the same thing but viewed under different conditions. The Racetrack is primarily a visual event, with one, two or three satellites visible are a time. The 'Swarm' tends to be seen with the aid of NVGs, like in Jimmy Chruch's sighting and the PVS-14 sightings, and now this one., and shows multiple satellites at a time drafting across the northern or southern horizon.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jimmy-churchs-possible-starlink-ufo-in-palmdale.12751/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pv...s-footage-of-racetrack-flares-starlink.12948/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mass-ufo-sighting-at-area-6-nevada-starlink.13183/#post-302552

 

[jarlrmai]

He imagines the cloud cover is total and completely opaque but it likely is not.

The videos with clear skies do not have accurate time.

I think we are still waiting for a high quality tripod steady long shot with accurate time without cloud cover.

I imagine the conditions for flares might at some point not be around from his location.

But after so many cases if someone is seeing intermittent lights by the Big Dipper we pretty much know it's Starlink flares, the syncing to individual satellites is just showing off how sophisticated our toolset is.

Nightvision devices also allow better syncing as they pickups more satellites as Flarkey notes from the Jimmy Church case.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I disagree again. The importance of that region of the sky: That's where the geometry is correct to see satellites illuminated by the Sun. Satellites in general.

 

[jarlrmai]

And almost exclusively they will be Starlink.

 

[JMartJr]

1. Newly deployed and bunched up train. Witness mistakes the train for a single solid object.
2. Still fresh but somewhat more strung out train. The witness describes it as a line of bright objects.
3. Older train; becoming much more spread out. The witness describes seeing individual, but related objects, following the same path.

Or...
1. The Streak
2. The String of Pearls
3. The Swarm

I've never seen any of those, really, the one time I saw a post-launch line of starlinks it was long enough after launch to have been a stage I'd propose, not sure if it would be 2.5 or 4 Call it a "String of Sparks." Along the line my satellite tracker said to watch for the Star Link pass from my location, there were none of the steady moving lights you think of as seeing a satellite, not even the relatively prolonged flares that make up reports of "Racetrack UAP," rather there intermittent and very fast flashes, mostly not particularly bright. The effect was so transient and mostly dim (with a few bright flashes mixed in) that I may not have noticed them if I was just outside looking at the stars. If I did, I might have chalked them off to just my eyes deceiving me if I did not know, and was not looking for, a line of Star Links right there, right then. They passed from North to SE of me in the evening; as I understand the flare zone they were not really in it.

My assumption was they were not"on station" yet, as at some point my tracker stops following them as a visible pass and that would seem a logical moment to do that.

The Swarm is the type most likely to be reported as a Racetrack sighting. Although the String of Pearls can also be reported as such when conditions are just right.

It's my impression watching the videos that the Racetrack UAP are composed of flares from satellites in number of trains, with satellites following different paths, accounting for why they are perceived as making turns. I'd propose, then, a "friendly amendment" to your 3rd stage:

3: Older, crossing trains; which have become much more spread out, The witness describes seeing individual, but related objects, following different paths, often perceived as making turns instead of being different objects spotted sequentially moving in different directions.

 

[Mick West]

It's my impression watching the videos that the Racetrack UAP are composed of flares from satellites in number of trains, with satellites following different paths, accounting for why they are perceived as making turns.

They are not really in trains at that point, they are in standard orbits. The racetrack illusion usually occurs when they are looking at the northernmost point of the orbits, where the satellites are all going roughly in the same direction (East)

 

[flarkey]

They are not really in trains at that point, they are in standard orbits. The racetrack illusion usually occurs when they are looking at the northernmost point of the orbits, where the satellites are all going roughly in the same direction (East)

the other thing for us to be aware of that this isn't just a Northern Hemisphere/Big Dipper phenomenon. Remember the Brazilian UFO flap in Puerto Allegre last year? That was the same racetrack illusion, but they were towards the south. They were still heading eastward, but from right to left.

 

[JMartJr]

They are not really in trains at that point, they are in standard orbits. The racetrack illusion usually occurs when they are looking at the northernmost point of the orbits, where the satellites are all going roughly in the same direction (East)

But presumably not in EXACTLY the same direction, otherwise people would not report them turning by conflating on going sort of NE with another going sort of SE!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I made a false assumption about what this witness means by "the triangle turn."

I thought he was talking about the individual light making maneuvers. I asked him for clarification. I wanted to ask more questions but he's gone silent both on Reddit and YT.

From thread:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1fgqlmd/update_nightly_uap_ufo_event_in_northern_sky_with/

ZombyWoof-DFS
Can you clarify what you mean by "The triangle turn"?


SnooBooks3529
OP
It's something that sometimes happens with these things. I have an earlier video, I think the second one I posted where it shows what I mean. Three points of light come together in the shape of a triangle, stay in that form for a couple of seconds, then they burst apart in 3 different directions. It doesn't happen in this video, but there was a couple time that it looked like it might.


ZombyWoof-DFS
Can you clarify what type of maneuvers these things make? I'm puzzled, because I only see them going in straight lines. What am I missing? Are they turning away or toward the camera sometimes? Are the lights directional, like the headlights of a car? Or are they omni-directional, like a lightbulb?

The video to which he was referring is from Sept. 4.
Triangle Comes together Then Breaks Apart in Night Sky


This clarifies what it is that's making an impression on this witness. It's not how they are moving individually, but how they are "interacting" as a group. This includes that notable thing about triangles... Triangles somehow seem very meaningful to some people, even though they're just made up of three points of light.

I certainly get the feeling that he's anthropomorphizing these lights. A common thing. They're under intelligent control. He thinks they're putting on a show, like The Blue Angels.

He's also making a false assumption that satellites all move in the same direction. But it's not true.

I can see why this might be impressive. It's hard to keep track of what's going on. Analyzing it more methodically though, what happens is pretty simple.

Two satellites following different paths converge on a star. Satellite A is heading from our left, up to our right at a shallow angle to the bottom of the frame. Satellite B is heading from our right to our left, at a greater angle to the bottom of the frame. They converge on a star, which I've labeled, and crisscross. Then two more satellites follow satellite A on the same path.

The third frame is "peak triangle."

The witness added the blue circle .

Three points of light come together in the shape of a triangle, stay in that form for a couple of seconds, then they burst apart in 3 different directions.

The satellites travel in straight lines and don't stop or even slow down at all. The star doesn't move. Because it's set against the motion of the two satellites, it may appear to move. I experienced that illusion the first time.

Take a look at the video...