What kind of aircraft displays these kind of lights?

[TobyAM]

Here's the stabilized footage in 1080. The volume is boosted significantly, and I don't hear any planes:
Source: https://youtu.be/jPlODkN5s1U

Here's the stabilized footage sped up 10X:
Source: https://youtu.be/GRlqHPboVMk


Watching the sped up footage shows some change in relative position of the lights in different directions, as well as some lights that come and go. It doesn't seem due to a simple change in perspective or relative position of two aircraft, but I haven't explored that theory myself too much.

 

[Trailspotter]

If it is of any help, there is a dot of light moving across the upper right corner at 0:42-0:45 in the opposite direction and with a similar speed to the object(s) in question. I think it could be a satellite.

 

[MonkeeSage]

So your telling me you still have no idea what it is then?

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose and nature of this subforum. We are trying to identify things people see in the sky, that is all. Sometimes the folks here are able to do so with a fairly high degree of certainty (like matching starlink tracks exactly to lights seen in a video), sometimes we have a best guess (like a balloon shape matches an object seen in a video), sometimes we have no explanation. The more information available the more likely an identification can be made, that's why people are asking for details.

 

[TobyAM]

There is absolutely no reason to put a red strobe on a flying saucer, but every airliner has one.

There's a very good reason to have a red flashing strobe: to blend in. Bidirectional mimicry is a theory based on many UFO observations that has been put forth.
Source: https://youtu.be/VD0ZVbtbnfI?si=MLJdd0r-HqzOUM_c&t=1367

 

[eyeSpy]

I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose and nature of this subforum. We are trying to identify things people see in the sky, that is all. Sometimes the folks here are able to do so with a fairly high degree of certainty (like matching starlink tracks exactly to lights seen in a video), sometimes we have a best guess (like a balloon shape matches an object seen in a video), sometimes we have no explanation. The more information available the more likely an identification can be made, that's why people are asking for detail

It just blows my mind that you think giving you my exact location beyond what I've given is going to change the fact that nobody has been able to identify anything even remotely the same.
In fact what i see is a major case of pareidolia.
Where you see things that make sense to YOU.

Regardless, I guess it remains completely unidentified unless there's anything further.
I get thousands of opinions so definitely don't need any more of those.
I was just here for the facts.

 

[eyeSpy]

I gave you the opportunity and,
I appreciate your efforts but you failed DUKE.

***UNIDENTIFIED CLUSTER OF ORBS.***
Not a solid object nor structure is present.

this was an incredible waist of time for everyone. "I'm Zeroing in"
On what?
For hours you were looking in the wrong direction.

 

[eyeSpy]

You can't post anything to support this being an airplane
AND comedy is not allowed.
Man.... this is really depressing guys.

 

[SuppaCoup]

Can you give us a location within say, 200-400 feet of where you were? There's no way for us to dox you with that.
And I think the hypothesis that this may be refueling airplanes is not entirely unreasonable, what do you think of it?

 

[SuppaCoup]

You can't post anything to support this being an airplane

I feel like the earlier posts about the docking planes made good points about how such an odd looking line of lights might have been created by two planes in a row, and that does explain that red light that flashes just like the ones aircraft are meant to have.

 

[eyeSpy]

Can you give us a location within say, 200-400 feet of where you were? There's no way for us to dox you with that.
And I think the hypothesis that this may be refueling airplanes is not entirely unreasonable, what do you think of it?

Just the fact that you said "dox" puts this site at risk if anything does happen so no I will not be giving you that level of information.
Regardless of personal intent.

These people act like there's 500 planes being refueled over that dot on that map at that time.
There were 0 planes on that date at that time that could explain this.

15 hours later still scratching their heads in denial.

 

[eyeSpy]

I feel like the earlier posts about the docking planes made good points about how such an odd looking line of lights might have been created by two planes in a row, and that does explain that red light that flashes just like the ones aircraft are meant to have.

Theirs a way to twist the truth into all sorts of believable lies.
To me they have chronic Pareidolia.
They want to see it but can't prove it. Because none of it matches up.
I've filmed airplanes at 3 times the distance and can always see every last detail!
This one was practically invisible
At no point did I see a solid structure other than lights.
my vision is 20/20

 

[Landru]

Just the fact that you said "dox" puts this site at risk if anything does happen so no I will not be giving you that level of information.
Regardless of personal intent.

These people act like there's 500 planes being refueled over that dot on that map at that time.
There were 0 planes on that date at that time that could explain this.

15 hours later still scratching their heads in denial.

The people on this thread are trying to use as much information as is available to to assist you to find out what these lights represent. You haven't eliminated all possible explanations.

Also, this sight has rules regarding politeness. Please read the Posting Guidelines for further explanation.

 

[eyeSpy]

The people on this thread are trying to use as much information as is available to to assist you to find out what these lights represent. You haven't eliminated all possible explanations.

Also, this sight has rules regarding politeness. Please read the Posting Guidelines for further explanation.

Your little group summoned me here.
Don't get that fact twisted.
I don't need assistance.

This website has failed to debunk it.
That's what I came here to see.
I don't care if you don't believe me.

[Impolite section removed]

 

[SuppaCoup]

Theirs a way to twist the truth into all sorts of believable lies.
To me they have chronic Pareidolia.
They want to see it but can't prove it. Because none of it matches up.
I've filmed airplanes at 3 times the distance and can always see every last detail!
This one was practically invisible
At no point did I see a solid structure other than lights.
my vision is 20/20

I see strong correlations between what you filmed and airplane lighting, including the exact timing of the red light flash with the standard for airplane signal lights and how the lights to the side of that red light look like what you'd see on an aircraft's wings. The fact that you couldn't see the structure clearly of an airplane at night and only saw its lights is normal-i have often had that exact experience at night with aircraft.

Just the fact that you said "dox" puts this site at risk if anything does happen so no I will not be giving you that level of information.

You are VASTLY more likely to get doxxed by a twitter troll than any of us, and I offer you my solemn word I will not try to discover your personal identity.

 

[Landru]

eyeSpy has been banned for one week for repeated impolite posts.

 

[SuppaCoup]

well...that was strange. I felt like the plane refueling hypothesis was pretty plausible, shame he had such a strong negative reaction to even very mild requests for information. I understand being cautious about your identity online, but that seems like a very strong overreaction.

 

[Landru]

For further information on airplane light requirements see https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...between-flashes-of-anti-collision/71859#71859

Aviation
Is there a standard for the frequency/interval between flashes of anti collision strobe light?

As far as I've spotted on lots of aircraft, I've noticed that the anti collision flashes are in a similar interval, no matter if it's a Boeing 737, Airbus or an F-16 Fighting Falcon. Is there any international standard or any sort of aviation safety rules that standardizes the frequency of the anti collision strobe light? If there any such rules, does it regulate whether the lights should have a single or double flashes at a time?

For the FAA, this can be found in 14 CFR Part 25 - AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES, Subpart F - Equipment, Lights (§§ 25.1381 - 25.1403):

§ 25.1401 Anticollision light system. (a) General. The airplane must have an anticollision light system that -

(1) Consists of one or more approved anticollision lights located so that their light will not impair the crew's vision or detract from the conspicuity of the position lights; and

(2) Meets the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.

...

(c) Flashing characteristics. The arrangement of the system, that is, the number of light sources, beam width, speed of rotation, and other characteristics, must give an effective flash frequency of not less than 40, nor more than 100 cycles per minute. The effective flash frequency is the frequency at which the airplane's complete anticollision light system is observed from a distance, and applies to each sector of light including any overlaps that exist when the system consists of more than one light source. In overlaps, flash frequencies may exceed 100, but not 180 cycles per minute.

Similar sections can be found for other types of aircraft in other sections; the specified flash rate is identical for all of them.

US military aircraft are not bound by FAA rules, of course, but they tend to voluntarily comply with them anyway unless they have a good reason not to.

 

[Cogg84]

Your little group summoned me here.
Don't get that fact twisted.
I don't need assistance.

This website has failed to debunk it.
That's what I came here to see.
I don't care if you don't believe me.

[Impolite section removed]

What was this guy suggesting? That aliens use red strobe lights now like our human aircraft?!? Cool story bro.

 

[SuppaCoup]

What was this guy suggesting? That aliens use red strobe lights now like our human aircraft?!? Cool story bro.

oh no, there was not even a hint of an actual response to any of the observations about how this looks overwhelmingly like an aircraft. honestly while I get why he was banned, I was hoping to coax some kind of a response from him eventually.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Well, that was pleasant.

 

[JimJam]

Your little group summoned me here.
Don't get that fact twisted.
I don't need assistance.

This website has failed to debunk it.
That's what I came here to see.
I don't care if you don't believe me.

[Impolite section removed]

I wish the impolite section was still there, this reads like the first two verses of a UFO anthem and would go great set to some up tempo pop-punk

 

[FastIndy]

I'm under a refueling track frequently used by KC-46s. They're usually refueling B-2s or other KC-46s, presumably for training/development on the new boom vision and control system. I can see if I can get some night-time video or photos of some tanker->tanker refueling. One thing I have noticed is that despite being very familiar with the aircraft involved, I can never tell at first glance what's going on.

 

[Mendel]

There's a very good reason to have a red flashing strobe: to blend in. Bidirectional mimicry is a theory based on many UFO observations that has been put forth.

So, do they also put a transponder and an ADS-B transmitter on the UFO, then? And do they communicate with ATC? file flight plans?

There is no half-way here. If you have that strobe, and another airliner sees you but can't find you on their TCAS, or if ATC notices you in controlled airspace, and you can't do what I listed above, you're going to have fighter jets intercepting you.

But if the aliens plan on being discovered, why don't we see them anywhere else?


Another consideration: if red strobes were helpful in staying undetected, we'd see drug runners use them. (They do have the advantage of being able to do all of the above for legitimate sectors of the flight.)

 

[Mendel]

your assuming it's a plane with no proof or evidence.
That's why we are here.

I am hypothesizing it's a group of aircraft, based on the geometry of the lights, and I'm looking for further evidence to support that hypothesis.

I've also hypothesized it could be a pair of kites. However, they wouldn't travel across the sky in a straight line.

You're hypothesizing it's a UFO, based on exactly the same evidence (the lights).
The problems with UFO hypothesis are:
• no established precedent
• no astronomer saw it arrive
• nobody saw it land
• no military reaction

You have my almost exact location.

Well, then. Boyce is "near Alexandria", and Mick's tanker track would fit your video if you were there. But if you were in Tioga, it wouldn't. Can you see how "near Alexandria" is not exact enough to assess whether this evidence fits the observation?

 

[SuppaCoup]

Here's the stabilized footage in 1080. The volume is boosted significantly, and I don't hear any planes:
Source: https://youtu.be/jPlODkN5s1U

Here's the stabilized footage sped up 10X:
Source: https://youtu.be/GRlqHPboVMk


Watching the sped up footage shows some change in relative position of the lights in different directions, as well as some lights that come and go. It doesn't seem due to a simple change in perspective or relative position of two aircraft, but I haven't explored that theory myself too much.

if it's an airplane flying along then it's only natural that the orientation and visibility of the lights will change as the angle of the plane towards us changes over time.
I really do think this is just some airplanes. The flashing red light is exactly where it would be on an airplane, and I find the idea that sneaky aliens would strap massive blazing lights to their crafts in some crude mimicry of us really to be straining credulity. At some point you're just ad hoc ruling out anything falsifying the extraordinary hypothesis.
Edit: I don't think us not being able to hear the plane is that surprising, whether an airplane is audible is highly dependent on its distance and on things like prevailing winds, and the fact that this set up has not amazing audio quality and some noticeable extraneous sound and music doesn't help.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

crude mimicry of us really to be straining credulity.

Try reading his Twitter/X timeline, he has 100s of videos of satellites he claims are all UFO/UAPs, and any attempt to help identify them is rebuffed. He has now blocked me and I'm glad of it.

 

[SuppaCoup]

Try reading his Twitter/X timeline

I escaped that pit of despair and madness a good long time ago, I avoid it like the plague. I hope this poor guy recovers from this obsession someday.

 

[flarkey]

Found this cool picture of what the receiving aircraft will see of the KC-135 tanker at night. It seems to fit the lights we see on the front aircraft. Note the bright light just out of shot on the top of the vertical stabilizer, as opposed to the less luminous tail light. Conversely, the E-6B has a bright tail light. This can account for the differences between the positions of the lights we see we see in the video. Also note the KC-135 has underwing illumination

Source: https://militarymachine.com/images-us-military-aircraft-night/

(image rotated, right engine added, and placed on black background for clarity)

lights with KC-135 and E-6B silhouettes overlaid. The light scheme now makes sense with the tanker light on the tail.

The aircraft are viewed from below and slightly from the right - this explains why only the Starboard nav light (green) is visible on the E-6B, but the Port (red) one isn't, and why the Port Underwing Lighting on the KC-135 is bright, but the starboard underwing lighting is less so.

Also attached is the KML file of the tanker, should anyone want it.

 

[jarlrmai]

I took the orginal video (50FPS) and synced the strobes with the video (29.97) @flarkey found of the E-6B then slowed it down to 25% of the original playback. With the interpolation between different frame rates they drift a little, but the match is there.

 

[JWrightBrain]

There's a very good reason to have a red flashing strobe: to blend in. Bidirectional mimicry is a theory based on many UFO observations that has been put forth.
Source: https://youtu.be/VD0ZVbtbnfI?si=MLJdd0r-HqzOUM_c&t=1367

Yeah. But at night it would be completely invisible without lights and then they wouldn’t have to waste the resources.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

The allegation of pareidolia triggers me.

I'd hazard a guess that it's the incredibly limited number of possibilities that leads people towards lights in the sky being planes.

 

[jarlrmai]

I tracked the E6 from when it vanishes from ADS-B ~2:04 am UTC till when it reappears on ADS-B which is around 03:36 am UTC which is a delta of 1h:32m. You can see (top left) that when it reappears it is still very close to the same tanker aircraft BOLT147. This indicates that the refuel process took this time and thus both aircraft were linked and on the same path.

Likely the actual refuel flow started a few minutes after the 02:04 ADS-B switch off and before the ADS-B turn back on. I looked up large aircraft refuel times and they can take a long time depending on the aircraft being refueled I found some quoted times for large aircraft like B52's with ~40 minutes on the line. The E6 is a long-range aircraft designed to be a airborne C&C for nuclear war etc so I would imagine it has a large fuel capacity although actual details on E6 refuel times is limited, but 1h32 for a full training refuel is not outside of the realms of possibility and seems to be borne out by the ADSB track.

And it certainly places the refuel operation as continuing into the OP's stated recording time of "Exactly 9:23 pm is when I pressed record" (02:23 UTC)

So the OP says it was moving NE and the star potions indicate someone looking at from the south and the sighting was from near Alexandria and this is backed by the star tracking.

So at 02:23 the tanker is heading E, can viewed in the north from Alexandria and still has the E6 attached as the refuel operation is continuing as that point.

 

[flarkey]

The E6 is a long-range aircraft designed to be a airborne C&C for nuclear war etc so I would imagine it has a large fuel capacity although actual details on E6 refuel times is limited, but 1h32 for a full training refuel is not outside of the realms of possibility and seems to be borne out by the ADSB track.

And it certainly places the refuel operation as continuing into the OP's stated recording time of "Exactly 9:23 pm is when I pressed record" (02:23 UTC)

If this was a training sortie they may not have been doing actual refuelling. It could have been 'refuelling flying training' allowing the pilots to practice the manoeuvring to allow the boom operator to mate with the E-6. So the longer duration may not be related to flow rates and fuel-capacity.

 

[jarlrmai]

If this was a training sortie they may not have been doing actual refuelling. It could have been 'refuelling flying training' allowing the pilots to practice the manoeuvring to allow the boom operator to mate with the E-6. So the longer duration may not be related to flow rates and fuel-capacity.

Ah so they just fly along and try boom operation over and over etc, with different trainees etc.

 

[flarkey]

Ah so they just fly along and try boom operation over and over etc, with different trainees etc.

They could do. 1hr32m seems a long time to be refuelling for.

Lets do some quick maths......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-6_Mercury
The Boeing E-6 Mercury (formerly Hermes) is an airborne command post and communications relay based on the Boeing 707-300.

Source = https://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-707
Fuel Capacity of 707-300 = ~ 90,000 litres

https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/bomb...KC-135 is equipped,at 6,500 pounds per minute.
KC-135 Boom Transfer rate = 6500 lb/min = 3800 litres/min

To fill a full E-6B (obviously they would never get to zero fuel whilst flying ) would be 90,000 litres / 3800 litres/min = 23 min,

So I think it is unlikely that they were refuelling for the full 1h32m.

 

[jarlrmai]

They could do. 1hr32m seems a long time to be refuelling for.

Lets do some quick maths......







To fill a full E-6B (obviously they would never get to zero fuel whilst flying ) would be 90,000 litres / 3800 litres/min = 23 min,

So I think it is unlikely that they were refuelling for the full 1h32m.

It's a bit of sidetrack but they could have increased the fuel capacity as part of the conversion of the 707-300 but it still probably doesn't take much longer than that, but we've established that if it were boom operator training the timing is not related to a refuel, although a refuel may have taken up some of the time.

 

[Trailspotter]

It may be possible to validate the suggestion of the two aircraft refuelling without @eyeSpy co-operation.
As I posted above, there is another flying object in the video, a single dot of light moving in an opposite direction with a similar angular speed (blue arrow) that appears to be a satellite:
It passed near a bright star (left of the arrowhead) that can be identified as beta Cepheus, a.k.a., Alfirk. If we can identify this satellite, we can verify the time of filming and probably narrow down the camera location. Any takers?

 

[Duke]

It's a bit of sidetrack but they could have increased the fuel capacity as part of the conversion of the 707-300 but it still probably doesn't take much longer than that, but we've established that if it were boom operator training the timing is not related to a refuel, although a refuel may have taken up some of the time.

Do we know where the KC-135 was based out of? The "school house" for the 135s is Altus AFB, OK.

The host unit at Altus AFB is the 97th Air Mobility Wing (97 AMW), assigned to the Nineteenth Air Force (19 AF) of the Air Education and Training Command (AETC). The wing's mission is to provide C-17 Globemaster III, KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-46 Pegasus formal initial and advanced specialty training programs for up to 3,000 flight crew and aircraft maintenance students annually.

Content from External Source

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt...ing's mission is to,Altus Army Airfield (AAF).

 

[flarkey]

Do we know where the KC-135 was based out of? The "school house" for the 135s is Altus AFB, OK.

The host unit at Altus AFB is the 97th Air Mobility Wing (97 AMW), assigned to the Nineteenth Air Force (19 AF) of the Air Education and Training Command (AETC). The wing's mission is to provide C-17 Globemaster III, KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-46 Pegasus formal initial and advanced specialty training programs for up to 3,000 flight crew and aircraft maintenance students annually.

Content from External Source

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altus_Air_Force_Base#:~:text=The wing's mission is to,Altus Army Airfield (AAF).

The E-6B RUFF07 tookoff and landed at Tinker AFB, OK.
The KC-135 BOLT47 tookoff and landed at McDill AFB, FLA.

 

[Duke]

RUFF07 tookoff and landed at Tinker AFB, OK.

Thanks. Still could have been a training mission out of Tinker.