Mystery object spotted over Whidbey Island

[UM-Bot]

A weather camera picked up this peculiar anomaly on Sunday night and nobody can agree on what it is.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/318774/mystery-object-spotted-over-whidbey-island

[bison]

My first impression was that it looked like a laser beam, variably scattered by clouds, and so made conspicuously visible. Then I saw the second image. That clearly seems to be some kind of rocket, with a fiery exhaust.

Edited June 12, 2018 by bison
added information

[Wes83]

Looks like a rocket to me?

[Sakari]

Helicopter.....Full, and very detailed explanation at link below.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21461/lets-talk-about-that-mysterious-rocket-launch-over-whidbey-island-photo-from-washington

Edited June 12, 2018 by Sakari

[eddword]

THIS IS CLEARLY A ROCKET OF SOME KIND,     MYSTERY SOLVED!

[+DanL]

SURELY you aren't suggesting that our government would LIE to us!!?? ... Only when their lips are moving!

[qxcontinuum]

Defiance all over again ...

[Maars]

18 hours ago, Sakari said:

Helicopter.....Full, and very detailed explanation at link below.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21461/lets-talk-about-that-mysterious-rocket-launch-over-whidbey-island-photo-from-washington

yeah right.

[Sakari]

5 hours ago, Maars said:

yeah right.

What insight you have. Love the details of your opinion. How about you write something up explaining why that is not what it says to be, and the science/details to explain why.....

But I guess just saying "yeah right" is so much easier, or really just means you have no idea how to debate that in some what detail.

[Fila]

Most likely not a missile. I thought it looked like a laser or rocket too. The helicopter theory seems to be the best.

The 20 second exposure time could explain why the beam of light looks strange.., and I guess the "rocket" looking object is actually the helicopter NAV lights trailing off into the distance.

One thing that does annoy me.., is there are no images before and after. Images are taken every 40 - 45 seconds. But according to Skunkbayweather they have no more images. If it travelled that far in 20 seconds.., I'd expect to see something like this either before or after.., but the cloud cover may be responsible for this.

Apparently the image was taken on camera 4, which points the same direction as Camera 2, but with a slightly wider FOV.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

The image shows a streak going edge to edge in the photo.

Why would anyone expect to see something in another photo?

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

The image shows a streak going edge to edge in the photo.

Why would anyone expect to see something in another photo?

Indeed - not only does the streak travel virtually from one edge to the other, it is a straight line, consistent with the chopper going somewhere specific rather than circling or patrolling (I'd love to hear the logic on where the streak would 'go' in another image...), you can clearly see that the thing was travelling either directly at or away from the camera (not only from the image, but also from the supplied flight plan of the chopper!), and you can also clearly see the huge cloud bank that would obscure it and/or block the searchlight.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by ChrLzs
close your brackets, chuck...

[Fila]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

The image shows a streak going edge to edge in the photo.

Why would anyone expect to see something in another photo?

That' a great question Stereo. Why would I expect to see the chopper in another photo? 

I take regular photos of the night sky with my DSLR and even on a 30 second exposure, I can take multiple photos of a single plane or chopper as it flies into the distance. If you look at their other weather clips.., you will notice the create a timelapse effect by placing all the long exposure images together. Images are taken every 40 - 45 seconds. In some you will see planes fly past.., but not in one 20 second image.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

Indeed - not only does the streak travel virtually from one edge to the other

Virtually. But if you have ever taken night photos of aircraft on a long exposure.., you would see where I am coming from. I will attempt to explain based on the images I have on my hard drive. The camera was stationary, horizon is in the bottom 1/5th of image.. You can clearly see the plane in the distance, as it goes further into the distance. I have images of aircraft further, but this illustrates my point.

 

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

(I'd love to hear the logic on where the streak would 'go' in another image...)

If there was another image.., the streak would continue along the same path. It would just appear smaller as it trails into the distance. I actually asked the owners the same question, and they informed me that was actually the last scheduled image for the night.

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

and you can also clearly see the huge cloud bank that would obscure it and/or block the searchlight.

Yes, I did mention this. Just thinking out loud and showing my process.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Fila

[toast]

4 hours ago, Fila said:

One thing that does annoy me.., is there are no images before and after. Images are taken every 40 - 45 seconds. But according to Skunkbayweather they have no more images. If it travelled that far in 20 seconds.., I'd expect to see something like this either before or after.., but the cloud cover may be responsible for this.

Let me clarify the long time, multiple exposure issue because not everyone knows exactly how it works (I use a CANON DSLR with long time exposure software EOS Utility :

Quote

Images are captured about every 40-45 seconds.  3.5/20 second exposure/

The Drive

Taking 20sec exposure shots in a row does not mean that all 60sec of minute are covered.

It does not look this way: sec 0 to 20 exposure followed by exposure sec 21 to 40 and exposure sec 41 to 60.

As the cam`s internal memory needs some seconds to download the taken image to a connected computer, and because of the cam`s shutter have to interrupt the exposure, there are always breaks in between 2 images. So, for a long time, multiple exposure run it looks like this: 0 to 20 exposure, sec 21 to 24 download, sec 25 to 45 exposure, sec 46 to 50 download etc.

 

[Fila]

8 minutes ago, toast said:

Taking 20sec exposure shots in a row does not mean that all 60sec of minute are covered.

It does not look this way: sec 0 to 20 exposure followed by exposure sec 21 to 40 and exposure sec 41 to 60.

As the cam`s internal memory needs some seconds to download the taken image to a connected computer, and because of the cam`s shutter have to interrupt the exposure, there are always breaks in between 2 images. So, for a long time, multiple exposure run it looks like this: 0 to 20 exposure, sec 21 to 24 download, sec 25 to 45 exposure, sec 46 to 50 download etc.

My old SONY NEX-VG20 takes images very quickly in between long exposure shots. You can download my images above.., and play them in order. You will barely notice a gap. I would say 2 seconds or less. The same can be done if you visit Skunkbayweather's website and watch their timelapse videos of still images. There is no large gap.

I spoke to the owner who stated that this was actually the last scheduled shot for the night.

There are no images before, because the object starts from the top out of frame.., and is moving away from the camera.

EDIT: In response to post below: I know. I just went into more detail.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Fila

[toast]

1 minute ago, Fila said:

There is no large gap.

My explanation was given to explain that there is a gap, no matter how short or long.

[ChrLzs]

Fila, how far away were those aircraft in your shots?   Now, how far away do you think the chopper in the OP was?

Here's a clue.  If a bug walks across your lens, and in so doing, covers the entire field of view, how long does it take?  What if it is an aircraft 10 miles away - how long does *that* take to cover your field of view?

Here's another clue - try to understand angular velocity and how it is intimately related to the distance...

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by ChrLzs
clarified wording

[pallidin]

Huh. Seems clearly to be a rocket launch of some sort... to me.

Given the narrow exhaust plume, it looks like a very high speed anti-ballistic missle test. 

Probably supposed to be secret, I guess.

Edited June 14, 2018 by pallidin

[toast]

1 hour ago, pallidin said:

Huh. Seems clearly to be a rocket launch of some sort... to me.

Given the narrow exhaust plume, it looks like a very high speed anti-ballistic missle test. 

Probably supposed to be secret, I guess.

I would go for a rocket as well because I don't buy the heli claim. And I wonder why FOX cropped the original image in a way that the object at the top of the trail cannot be seen.

[Minimalists]

I would tend to agree with the rocket theory myself. Lightening entered my mind when I first saw it but the line is straight and not jagged like a lightening strike would be.

[stereologist]

I have to say that I Cannot believe I have to say this.

In the Whidbey photo the object starts OUTSIDE of the field of view and continues till it is OUTSIDE of the field of view. It moves from edge to edge of the ENTIRE field of view.

Then a number of photos are shown with an object starting INSIDE of the field of view and ending INSIDE of the field of view.

These are similar yet as far as the object recorded is concerned they are very different images.

Here is what I posted

Quote

The image shows a streak going edge to edge in the photo.

Why would anyone expect to see something in another photo?

The response to this is

Quote

Why would I expect to see the chopper in another photo? 

The Whidbey photo shows that the object has left the field of view? The other posted photos do not show that the object has left the field of view.

The object has left the field of view. It is no longer in the field of view. It has already moved past the observable field of view.

It has traveled by. It is seen to have gone by. It is not going to be in another photo. It's travels have taken it past where it can be observed. It's observation time is no longer.

[stereologist]

It doesn't look like a rocket at all. Rocket launches are not lines. The plumes of the exhaust expand. The plumes last for a while. There is nothing left in the next photo according to the source.

This is a line caused by a light source that did not leave anything behind.

[stereologist]

BTW, for those that think this is a ballistic missile launch from Whidbey Island you need to look up what is at Whidbey Island. The place doesn't have such launch capabilities. They certain wouldn't launch a secret missile test there. That would be like trying to do it from Ellis Island or Alcatraz. Secret launches could  be done out to sea where prying eyes would  not see  it.

[toast]

7 hours ago, stereologist said:

BTW, for those that think this is a ballistic missile launch from Whidbey Island you need to look up what is at Whidbey Island. The place doesn't have such launch capabilities. They certain wouldn't launch a secret missile test there. That would be like trying to do it from Ellis Island or Alcatraz. Secret launches could  be done out to sea where prying eyes would  not see  it.

I dont take an ICBM into consideration, but something like a SAM or so, maybe sea launched out of Whidbey Island.

Edited June 14, 2018 by toast
%@#& !!!

[godnodog]

Maybe its God's lightsaber