Help identifying videotaped object

[PerpetualMotion]

Hi everybody. I just came across this videoclip http://www.hbccufo.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3766 and wanted to pick the brains of seasoned astrophotographers as to what it could possibly be. I am pretty sure there is a simple and quick explanation... It's my understanding that from the way the debris fell and their direction, whatever it was must have been at a fairly low altitude, and a close enough distance ? If I'm not too confused, I believe Vandenberg AFB is in that same direction.

Let me know if this is the wrong forum to post this into !

Thanks ! :surprised

[The_Radiation_Specialist]

it would help if the guys name was anything but "johnny anynomus".

[PerpetualMotion]

it would help if the guys name was anything but "johnny anynomus".

At least you know he's not doing it for the "fame" :p

I forgot to include a direct link to the video for the people who scanned the observation details quickly and missed the link: http://www.hbccufo.org/videos/EXPLODE_Jan18_JA_Short.wmv

[Eric Vaxxine]

My gut reaction is it's a military excersise, only because it doesn't appear to be a civilian Aeroplane or Helicopter, Blimp or light aircraft. It reminds me of a flare, especially when it dies.

[NEOWatcher]

Nice commentary though;
"woa, woa,,, woa, woa, woa,, woa,,, woa,, woa, woa":lol:

[ryanmercer]

My gut reaction is it's a military excersise, only because it doesn't appear to be a civilian Aeroplane or Helicopter, Blimp or light aircraft. It reminds me of a flare, especially when it dies.

It does look an awful lot like a flare.

[Tog_]

My first thought was a missile hitting a target drone travelling almost directly away from the camera. Any way to use the agular distance between the two stars (assuming they are in Orion's belt) to measure the angluar distance over time of the debris to get a range to the object?

[PerpetualMotion]

The fact that it stayed aloft for so long without moving much or changing intensity leads me to believe it wasn't a flare, although it sure burns up like one after it blows up. Since it looks like a small dot under a big bright light, I'm leaning towards a really big high altitude balloon carrying some king of payload, reflecting the sun's light (observation started a little before sunset and lasted for a while after that). But that hypothesis comes with many questions: wouldn't a high altitude balloon show some kind of drift over such a significant amount of time, especially in a coastal area ? Is there an military firing range south of where the observer was, that would allow them to afford showering an area with fiery debris ? If it's a balloon and not military, what was it and what happened ? I know that if I had seen that thing myself, I would not rest until I figured it out :)

[Eric Vaxxine]

The one thing I didn't suggest was that it is an intelligent flare that accurately maintains it's position. A useful tool in battle. Next we'll see a string of them all mainting position.

[MilchstrabeStern]

Actually, about the flares:

It could very well be a flare (depending how long it was in position).

In the skies of Phoenix (where I live) a few years back there was a series of flares. About 7, in the shape of a Y, floating in the skies over phoenix. They all drifted together so it appeared to some as a large craft. The Military later said that they were just flares released from an F-16.

About the Missile theory:

I don't think it's a missile, it probably wouldn't be that bright and the chances of it being headed at such an angle are slim. I was driving home from northern Arizona though at least 4 years ago. We were coming off the rim and the sun had just set. On the horizion there was a huge brilliant orange, yellow, and red "cloud." But it was definately not a cloud, it looked like Phoenix had been nuked, I sware. We stopped for gas and asked around - apparently it was the smoke trail from a missile that had been launched from California into the upper atmosphere. Anyways, that was a little off subject.

Flare is my best bet.

[odin]

Could that not be a meteor burning up that just happens to be heading straight towards the camera? looks possible to me.

[SpockJim]

I have been in the AirForce for the past 4 years and that is indeed a flare.

[PerpetualMotion]

I have been in the AirForce for the past 4 years and that is indeed a flare.

I am fairly familiar with military technology but I am not aware of flares that can maintain their exact position/altitude (especially over such a period of time) since most illumination flares are parachute-based, and furthermore simply stop burning (magnesium) after a while instead of falling apart. Any link to the flare technology you might be talking about ?

:)

[R.A.F.]

I am fairly familiar with military technology but I am not aware of flares that can maintain their exact position/altitude (especially over such a period of time)

Especially over such a period of time? Just how long would that be, exactly??

The video clip lasts 1 minute, 6 seconds. Doesn't seem that "long of time" to me.

[MilchstrabeStern]

It is hard to tell if it did infact maintain it's position. It could very well be at a high altitude and slowly drifting, it just isn't noticible. Flares tend to seem like they are floating, they don't just fall to the ground.

BTW: is this a british forum?

[Eric Vaxxine]

Actually, about the flares:

It could very well be a flare (depending how long it was in position).

In the skies of Phoenix (where I live) a few years back there was a series of flares. About 7, in the shape of a Y, floating in the skies over phoenix. They all drifted together so it appeared to some as a large craft. The Military later said that they were just flares released from an F-16.

Flare is my best bet.

I think it could be an upgraded version of the phoenix lights flare.
A flare that maintains it's position, look out for a group that will maintain their position in the next sighting. Concerning the Phoenix lights, it would be interesting to know how long they burned for and whether anyone filmed them burning out. They all descended behind the hills as I recall.

I can't answer you forum question, I came via Universe Today, which is Canadian, I think.

[PerpetualMotion]

Especially over such a period of time? Just how long would that be, exactly??

The video clip lasts 1 minute, 6 seconds. Doesn't seem that "long of time" to me.

About 20 minutes. That small video clip is not realtime, it's an edited piece cut from bits of the whole footage. Watch for the time stamp that shows up at times, the video at the beginning of the clip was shot at 6:35 (still dusk), and the object disintegrates at almost 6:42 (dark sky now, guy switched to infrared), after staying in the same spot in the sky for at least 7 minutes (the period of time between the two time stamps in this short clip). The guy spotted the thing in the sky around 6:22, though, as said in the notes, so if it's a flare, I don't really think it can be under a parachute as it doesn't seem to drift or lose altitude... Hmm. :confused:

[Halcyon Dayz]

BTW: is this a British forum?
Not necessarily. ;)

I like to think of it as a global forum.
IIRC, the server is in California though.

[NEOWatcher]

... so if it's a flare, I don't really think it can be under a parachute as it doesn't seem to drift or lose altitude... Hmm. :confused:
The "flare" is the break-up of the object, and not the entire video. The break-up is obviously falling in the video. Now the 19 minutes you're claiming before the break-up is something else, and could be a helicopter or something else that was used to launch the flare.

[PerpetualMotion]

The "flare" is the break-up of the object, and not the entire video. The break-up is obviously falling in the video. Now the 19 minutes you're claiming before the break-up is something else, and could be a helicopter or something else that was used to launch the flare.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm just reading and watching... And I have to disagree with your theory, because if you look closely, the steady light that you say could be a helicopter is the very object that breaks apart... If you watch the video frame by frame, it goes from big bright light to fiery debris breaking up, and where the bright light used to be a split second earlier, there is only a cloud of smoke that's lit up by the debris from underneath, with no aircraft to be seen in or around it. The initial object is the object that breaks apart into pieces

[NEOWatcher]

I'm not claiming anything, I'm just reading and watching... And I have to disagree with your theory, because if you look closely, the steady light that you say could be a helicopter is the very object that breaks apart... If you watch the video frame by frame, it goes from big bright light to fiery debris breaking up, and where the bright light used to be a split second earlier, there is only a cloud of smoke that's lit up by the debris from underneath, with no aircraft to be seen in or around it. The initial object is the object that breaks apart into pieces

I'm not claiming you claimed the claim you're claiming was claimed. ;)

All of your observations are based on the claims made by a group claiming that it is an ET-UFO. So they are presenting the facts that they believe are consistant. Even without any malicious intent, they could leave out facts that seam irrelevent to them, but could be very relevent to someone with a different background.

I think most everyone here (including myself) is just trying to point out some logical explainations for the video. But, we can't even trust that this is a true representation of what is going on.

After looking at it again, I see how the single object breaks up, but there is a video cutover about 2-3 seconds before the break up. So how can we be sure we are looking at the same object?

[PerpetualMotion]

I'm not claiming you claimed the claim you're claiming was claimed. ;)

All of your observations are based on the claims made by a group claiming that it is an ET-UFO. So they are presenting the facts that they believe are consistant. Even without any malicious intent, they could leave out facts that seam irrelevent to them, but could be very relevent to someone with a different background.

I think most everyone here (including myself) is just trying to point out some logical explainations for the video. But, we can't even trust that this is a true representation of what is going on.

After looking at it again, I see how the single object breaks up, but there is a video cutover about 2-3 seconds before the break up. So how can we be sure we are looking at the same object?


Wait, did I claim what was claimed to claim ? Or... Err. :think:

Actually I thought the guy did a pretty good job at staying objective and keeps writing he has no idea what it was, he doesn't claim it was little green men... It is, though, a genuine UFO, an Unknown Flying Object, up until it gets identified ;) I have next to no doubt it must have a very simple explanation, hence why i'm here... I want to know darnit :)

Well yes indeed, there are a bunch of edits and yet you can tell it's always the same shape and brightness (a tiny faint dot under a big bright round light) and you can tell that throughout the cuts, it stays in the same spot in the sky (you can tell by the stars in the picture). I wonder where we should repost this thread to get more specific answers.

[Tog_]

Okay, I checked some things out. At 5:30 PM from Sonora, CA on the Jan 18, Orion's belt was almost completely vertical. Those stars are NOT Orion's belt, unless the camera was tipped sideways. If that's the case, his drawing is wrong. The only bright stars I can see on the map in that area this might fit the bill are Aldebaran and Theta Tauri, but the there is a huge mag difference between them. 0.7 and 3.8 so this doesn't seem likely either.

His description says the object was between 95 and 110 degrees, moving slowly west, with a smaller object moving upward.

But not knowing this at the time, I actually thought that I might have encountered a craft moving away from the larger object and so followed it for several minutes. The larger object was probably somewhere between 95-110 degrees arc in the southern sky and was very slowly moving towards the west, meanwhile what I thought was another craft was moving steadily upward.

The bright object does lose altitude (assuming the top of the screen is up). This can be seen by measuring the distances from the two stars in the still images on the post in a few different frames.

His location would place him about 50 miles north of Fresno, CA, about 37deg, 45 Min North. There don't seem to be any airbases between that location and the mountains to the east.

Any thoughts on what those two stars could be?

[R.A.F.]

And I have to disagree with your theory, because if you look closely, the steady light that you say could be a helicopter is the very object that breaks apart... If you watch the video frame by frame, it goes from big bright light to fiery debris breaking up, and where the bright light used to be a split second earlier, there is only a cloud of smoke that's lit up by the debris from underneath, with no aircraft to be seen in or around it. The initial object is the object that breaks apart into pieces

So how does that "rule out" a flare? Lets look at exactly what we have here....

For the first 28 seconds of the clip, we see a bright star-like object...then for the next 38 seconds we see it "break apart".

That first 28 seconds looks just like a flare, followed by the break up which looks just like a flare does when it "goes out".

I fail to see a problem with that interpretation.

[PerpetualMotion]

Okay, I checked some things out. At 5:30 PM from Sonora, CA on the Jan 18, Orion's belt was almost completely vertical. Those stars are NOT Orion's belt, unless the camera was tipped sideways. If that's the case, his drawing is wrong. The only bright stars I can see on the map in that area this might fit the bill are Aldebaran and Theta Tauri, but the there is a huge mag difference between them. 0.7 and 3.8 so this doesn't seem likely either.

His description says the object was between 95 and 110 degrees, moving slowly west, with a smaller object moving upward.

The bright object does lose altitude (assuming the top of the screen is up). This can be seen by measuring the distances from the two stars in the still images on the post in a few different frames.

His location would place him about 50 miles north of Fresno, CA, about 37deg, 45 Min North. There don't seem to be any airbases between that location and the mountains to the east.

Any thoughts on what those two stars could be?



Is it possible that the "small object" under the big round light is actually a star in the background ? Would that triangle star formation be a clue then ? Since he's zoomed in pretty much all the way, it's hard to figure out how small that star pattern is. I am not familiar enough with resources that would allow one to figure out what the southern sky was like at that time and on that day. Also, I had assumed the change of distance between the object and the stars over the course of those twenty minutes was a result of the stars slowly making their trek across the sky but I realized I have no idea what exact direction the stars are actually supposed to be moving since he's looking south... Can you tell I suck at getting my bearings from the heavens above ? :D

[Tog_]

Nope, the small object moves in relation to the two other stars. One bit of debris it pretty obvious and leaved the frame at the 36 second tick. It takes about 6.5 seconds to fall from that point, and as it seems to be accelerating at the time it has probably not reached terminal velocity. For those 6-7 seconds, the starts are still in the shot. I think if would could ID the stars, and get a person with reliable physics skills (ie NOT me) to figure the distance an object will fall in 6 to 7 seconds, we could get the angular distance (using the stars for scale). Then we could get the altitude and azimuth from a star chart, and have the range to the object to determine approximately where the debris fell. Actually, we should be able to get the range to the object with the data at hand.
Edit- No, it's not. I got a distance of 207 meters for the falling bit if stuff, but without an angular measurement that's it.

Oh, I looked for the two stars at both the true heading of around 100 degrees and the magnetic declination, which would be 84 degrees. I'll look again on a smaller scale and see if I can find any, but I'm assuming those starts must be mag three or brighter to show on video, even with light enhancement.
Edit- I found some stars in the right positions (upper horn of Taurus), and of the right brightness spread I think, the problem is, if they are the right ones, there should be another bright one visible near the object, which moves enough that the star couldn't be behind it the whole time.

[R.A.F.]

I got a distance of 207 meters for the falling bit if stuff, but without an angular measurement that's it.

...and you propose this without knowing either the size of said "objects", or distance to "them"?

[Tog_]

...and you propose this without knowing either the size of said "objects", or distance to "them"?

The assumption I made was based on the rate at which it fell. Don't all falling objects travel the same distance per unit of time until terminal velocity? (Incidentally, that was why I was hoping that someone with a better knowledge of physics looked into it in my first responce here. Almost all the physics I know came from what I read in the 1972 World Book encyclopedia.)

I used 6.5 seconds becasue that is the time from the explosion until the piece I was using left the frame with the two stars in it.

[R.A.F.]

The assumption I made was based on the rate at which it fell. Don't all falling objects travel the same distance per unit of time until terminal velocity?

Your making the assumption that you can know the mass of the "falling objects". Having only the video as evidence, how can that be done?

[Tog_]

Your making the assumption that you can know the mass of the "falling objects". Having only the video as evidence, how can that be done?

I didn't mention the mass at all. It's my understabding that a nerf football will fall at the same rate as an anvil until each reaches terminal velocity. Since the debris is accelerating when it reaches the bottom of the frame, it hasn't reached TV yet; so the acceleration of gravity constant should still apply. (I used 9.81 meters per second.)

Here is the site (http://physics.webplasma.com/physics04.html#kin) where I got the formula.

Am I misunderstanding how the formula works?

[R.A.F.]

An object with a low mass and relatively large cross section would be more effected by air resistance (more so than something with a high mass, smaller cross section) as it falls through the atmosphere. It would "drift" down.

I'm not saying that is what happened here, only that
the video simply does not provide enough information to make either determination "usable".

[kbmast]

Sure looked like flares I've seen. They look like they're stationary because of how slowly they fall depending on the distance. I LOVE the commentary though.

[Tog_]

An object with a low mass and relatively large cross section would be more effected by air resistance (more so than something with a high mass, smaller cross section) as it falls through the atmosphere. It would "drift" down.

I'm not saying that is what happened here, only that
the video simply does not provide enough information to make either determination "usable".
Okay, I may see where I got confused. I think I misunderstood what you thought I missunderstood.

Let's say we have a ball and a spike, and a world where the following is true. Acceleration of gravity is exactly 10 meters per second, the terminal velocity of the ball is 31m/s, and the TV of the spike is 151 m/s.

The way I thought I understood it, both will fall at the same rate for the first second. At the end of the second second, they will still be dead even. Just after the end of the second second, the ball wil reach it's TV and it's speed will become "fixed", while the spike will continue to accelerate for another 3 seconds.

The way you describe it, the ball will never get the full 10 m/s of acceleration because the air resistance would act on it as soon as it started to move. It that correct? By that I mean first, is that what you're saying? And second, is that really how it works?

I based my estimate on the way I thought it worked, and since the piece I was looking at was still accelerating, it hadn't reached TV yet. If my take on how acceleration works was wrong, then I can see where my number may be wrong also. At any rate, with out being able to ID the stars in the background, it doesn't seem to matter.

[Wolverine]

I wonder where we should repost this thread to get more specific answers.

Hi PerpetualMotion:

Since this topic isn't receiving the desired degree of attention, I've moved the thread to a busier area in order to prompt further input. Since your initial post asked for advice from our astrophotography contingent specifically, it remained there. After further review, though, the Astrophotography section probably isn't the best home for such an inquiry. Hopefully it'll attract more traffic, scrutiny, and suggestions in BABBling.

[R.A.F.]

The way you describe it, the ball will never get the full 10 m/s of acceleration because the air resistance would act on it as soon as it started to move. It that correct?

Air resistance (as far as I know) would be a factor...and I welcome anyone who can "set me straight" if I'm wrong. :)

For all I know, the object could be a dry cleaners bag with candles (on cross sticks of balsa wood) for lift.

We could be viewing the break-up of the bag, and the balsa sticks (being very light) would tend to (for lack of a better word) float slowly down through the atmosphere, while the bag, itself might continue raising for a short time...

But that's really just useless speculation based on lack of information...my point is that our only evidence is the video, itself. There are a number of different variables which we can not know simply by looking at that video.

...and knowledge of these variables is crutial in determining just "what" the object is.

Sorry I can't be more helpful...

[farmerjumperdon]

Air resistance (as far as I know) would be a factor...and I welcome anyone who can "set me straight" if I'm wrong. :)

For all I know, the object could be a dry cleaners bag with candles (on cross sticks of balsa wood) for lift.

We could be viewing the break-up of the bag, and the balsa sticks (being very light) would tend to (for lack of a better word) float slowly down through the atmosphere, while the bag, itself might continue raising for a short time...

But that's really just useless speculation based on lack of information...my point is that our only evidence is the video, itself. There are a number of different variables which we can not know simply by looking at that video.

...and knowledge of these variables is crutial in determining just "what" the object is.

Sorry I can't be more helpful...

Yep; a bit rusty at this myself, but the formula applies to objects in a vacumm. When you introduce drag coefficents, which have to do with air flowing over different sizes and shapes, then the fall rates will vary.

I think the classical experiment is a rock and a feather, in a sealed vacumm (tube shaped cylinder). When you invert the cylinder, the rock and feather land on the other side at the same time.

I think (Sorry to have to keep saying that, I'm waiting for an expert to say for sure) object accelerate at 16 feet per second per second in the vacumm. The introduction of an atmosphere, and therefore drag, determines the terminal velocity of the object. For example, a human has a terminal velocity of between 100 and 250 MPH (roughly) depending on how they are oriented towards the relative wind.

Fire away experts.

[farmerjumperdon]

Correction already. In the general thickness of air we are used to dealing with - say under 10K feet, a human has a 100 to 250MPH TV. In the highest jump on record, a guy bailed out of a balloon at about 100K feet and reached a maximum speed of about 700 MPH. And I believe he had a small drogue parachute out in order to maintain stability! It was quite a few years ago; his name was kitter or kitterling or something like that, and amazingly - no one has attempted to break his record.

[Candy]

Sure looked like flares I've seen. They look like they're stationary because of how slowly they fall depending on the distance. I LOVE the commentary though. I've been trying to think who he sounds like. Elmer Fudd? :think:

[farmerjumperdon]

Certainly an interesting video. Could be a lot of things up until the end. That part throws me.

I want to hear from the person in the army 4 years who made the firm statement about it being a flare. Is that how one of their flares looks when it is burning out?

Doesn't sound like Elmer Fudd though, well, maybe just a bit. Sounds more like the voice in the radio commercial for Dude, Where's My Car? or whatever the name of that movie was.

I keep waiting for him to say it.

[Halcyon Dayz]

Joe Kittinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger), 'First man in Space'.

[Tog_]

Yep; a bit rusty at this myself, but the formula applies to objects in a vacumm. When you introduce drag coefficents, which have to do with air flowing over different sizes and shapes, then the fall rates will vary.

I think the classical experiment is a rock and a feather, in a sealed vacumm (tube shaped cylinder). When you invert the cylinder, the rock and feather land on the other side at the same time.

I think (Sorry to have to keep saying that, I'm waiting for an expert to say for sure) object accelerate at 16 feet per second per second in the vacumm. The introduction of an atmosphere, and therefore drag, determines the terminal velocity of the object. For example, a human has a terminal velocity of between 100 and 250 MPH (roughly) depending on how they are oriented towards the relative wind.

Fire away experts.

Right. I agree with that (except it's 32fps, not 16 ;) ), my question was if the acceleration in an atmosphere would be slower than the constant before it reaches terminal velocity.

It would also be different if the falling object was propelled at a higher speed by the explosion. Shooting a rilfe out of a balloon would send the bullet traveling much faster than terminal velocity, until it slowed down due to air, but it would almost certainly hit the ground first. That was why I chose to ignore to first two bits of debris that fell, they left the object at a higher rate of speed than the main bit I used. There are two more that seem to be very lightweight that barely drop at all in that time. I went with the one that 'looked right'.

[HenrikOlsen]

The way you describe it, the ball will never get the full 10 m/s of acceleration because the air resistance would act on it as soon as it started to move. It that correct? By that I mean first, is that what you're saying? And second, is that really how it works?
Yes, that's how it works.

[Tog_]

The way you describe it, the ball will never get the full 10 m/s of acceleration because the air resistance would act on it as soon as it started to move. It that correct? By that I mean first, is that what you're saying? And second, is that really how it works?

Yes, that's how it works.

Bah... okay, disregard my estimate of 207 meters and thanks for clearing that up for me.

Sorry R.A.F. for the misunderstanding on my part.

[Jeff Root]

Bah... okay, disregard my estimate of 207 meters and thanks for
clearing that up for me.

Sorry R.A.F. for the misunderstanding on my part.
On the other hand, I dropped a ping-pong ball and a steel
ball bearing side-by side many times from a height of about
6.5 feet, and could not detect any difference in the time
they took to reach the floor. My impression is that Tog's
original understanding is correct, at least to the first order
approximation: all objects accelerate at 32 feet per second
per second until they reach their terminal speeds.

Of course, 6.5 feet isn't much of a drop, and my measuring
tools (particularly the image interpretation/data reduction
device inside the skull) leave something to be desired.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[LurchGS]

Of course, 6.5 feet isn't much of a drop, and my measuring
tools (particularly the image interpretation/data reduction
device inside the skull) leave something to be desired.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis


Yeah, the Mark I iBall is good for a first run device, but it's usefullness is limited. You are stuck working with 'visible' light, anything farther away than a hundred meters or so is lacking in detail, it has a heck of a time finding slivvers, anything occuring more quickly than about .1 second is essentially invisible, and it can only see in one direction at a time.

I can't wait for the Mark II!

Though, I should point out, the auditory system should be able to tell you if the two hit at the same time - it's insanely accurate. The average human can detect a difference in signal arrival time between ears of about 10 microseconds. (Granted, the sounds from the bearing and the ball will arrive at the ears at about the same time - but your hearing should be good enough to detect a difference in their initiation times)