Mystery object spotted over Whidbey Island

[Fila]

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

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

I would estimate the planes to be approx 20 kilometers away horizontally, and at least 1km high in my images. The chopper is 600 meters high.., and travels 1188 meters during the 20 second image (at 115 knots). The planes in my images are much further.

14 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

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?

lol, I know what you are saying. A better question would be.., can this camera detect a chopper (with searchlight) 2 kilometers away, at 600 meters elevation. I would suggest yes.., as I can see a lighthouse 50kms away with my naked eye from my city.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Fila

[pallidin]

ABM rockets can most certainly leave behind a narrow plume streak due to the chemicals used and the exhaust nozzle of ABM missles.

The "narrowness" of the plume indicates very high speed and low diameter thrust nozzle.

I've seen ABM test trails that look exactly the same as this.

[ChrLzs]

22 minutes ago, pallidin said:

ABM rockets can most certainly leave behind a narrow plume streak due to the chemicals used and the exhaust nozzle of ABM missles.

The "narrowness" of the plume indicates very high speed and low diameter thrust nozzle.

I've seen ABM test trails that look exactly the same as this.

Picture?

[pallidin]

Here: https://www.google.com/search?q=thin+rocket+launch+exhaust+trails&safe=active&client=ms-android-att-us&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8i4fpkdTbAhWpx4MKHQNABh0Q_AUIEigC&biw=360&bih=615#imgrc=lD7ijGFQoXO3kM:

I'll do better. How about video.

Note: Anti-missle, not ABM.

 

 

[pallidin]

"Hyper velocity thin rockets" often have an extremely narrow exhaust plume (winds can affect that)

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Fila said:

I would estimate the planes to be approx 20 kilometers away horizontally, and at least 1km high in my images.

And no error range?  You really haven't had any exposure at all to real science or how to do a decent analysis.  In case you are wondering - here's how I would do it - we can safely assume the aircraft is a commercial airliner and a commercial airliner has a usual range of speeds when near a city/airport (I'll let you look up that range).  If your exposure was X seconds long, and the airliner covered Y degrees in the field of view (which we can get from your lens focal length / zoom setting) then it's a fairly simple calculation and will give you the *range* of distances that might apply.

Why not have a go - if you actually showed some work like this, your 'analysis' and guesses might be taken more seriously...

They are not taken seriously now by anyone here because not once have you shown you can do that sort of thinking, and when people point out flaws in your attempts instead of addressing them, you just brush them off and change the goalposts - in fact you gave a wonderful example of that here. Do read on. 

Quote

The chopper is 600 meters high.., and travels 1188 meters during the 20 second image (at 115 knots). The planes in my images are much further.

Again, no error range, no statement of assumptions - where the hell did you pluck those numbers from?  And why did you give a HEIGHT and a distance TRAVELED (NO distance to the chopper), and then just say your planes are 'much further'?  You are not showing figures that are comparable - you don't give that guess until later?  SHOW YOUR WORK, and think about what you are doing..

Anyway, let's move on, and remember, you chose the numbers...)

So let's accept it was 2 kilometres.  You estimated that your aircraft are 20km away, so that means you would need to multiply your time-to-cover-field of view by 10X or more, and take into account all other factors, like (angular) speed (vectored according to the angle in 3D space) of chopper versus that of the aircraft, accounting for the different f-o-v's, etc.

Yet earlier you compared your distant aircraft's movement thru the field of view DIRECTLY to that of the nearby chopper.   Wrong.  You mentioned absolutely nothing about the assumptions and various factors underlying that horribly flawed 'comparison'.  Do you honestly not see how many factors you completely ignored? 

Quote

lol, I know what you are saying. A better question would be..

A perfect example of changing the goalposts - you completely ignore the point and then try to change the subject.  Busted.

Quote

, can this camera detect a chopper (with searchlight) 2 kilometers away, at 600 meters elevation. I would suggest yes.., as I can see a lighthouse 50kms away with my naked eye from my city.

That's just a ludicrous comparison.  You have no baseline data about the strength of the searchlights from either source, haven't taken into account viewing angle, the illumination of the clouds, sensitivity of eye versus camera etc, etc.  You try to simplify with these ridiculous analogies - but the situation is complex, and you are simply demonstrating how little clue you have.  You really need to send a few years learning stuff and then pop back.. or pick a different hobby..

Edited June 14, 2018 by ChrLzs

[ChrLzs]

Thanks Pallidin, but I'm just not seeing it.  Here's a comparison:

  

The main problems I have are:

1. The brightness of the trail in the first is very high and very consistent - extremely bright except where obscured by 'conveniently' positioned bits of that cloud bank.  In the latter images of rockets, there is no flame beyond a very short distance under the nozzle.  Are you suggest that it is still combusting that far down?  Rockets don't work like that - it would be a huge waste of energy.  And if not, what is illuminating it so brightly?

2. The trail in the first is highly constrained - it does not spread *at all* except in the areas where it's hitting cloud.  It looks much more like tightly focused led or laser beam.

3. Absolutely no trace of smoke below where the beam is apparently finally obscured by the clouds.

I note that the first trail appears to have a very slight curve, but that is consistent with the geometry of wide angle lenses - I suspect if we looked at the known pincushion distortion of the lens being used at that zoom setting, that geometry of the beam would resolve as dead straight.  Most of the rocket launches I saw in your examples have slightly more bent trails, no trace of similar bright illumination all the way down, and the smoke trail starts where rocket takes off... but I would welcome any specific examples.

I still think it's a chopper coming straight at (or going away from) the camera.  I also think it's less than a 20 second exposure - am currently trying to verify that one way or the other. 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by ChrLzs
badd spelin

[ChrLzs]

BTW, if anyone wonders why I am not setting the example and doing some of those calculations to determine whether the length of the trail is consistent with a chopper - here's why:

1. It's NOT a motion trail, imo!  If it is a searchlight beam, then any motion calculation on it would be worthless andextremely misleading.  The small area of blur at the top of the trail *might* be the trail of the chopper, but is small and unclear so the potential measurement errors are large.

2. We do NOT yet have verifiable information about the length of the exposure.  I think it's less than the 20 seconds claimed, and until we know for sure, again the potential error range is way too big.

3. If it is a chopper, well, they can go very fast, and they can also hover - without a full record of the flight path they took and whether anything caused them to slow or even stop - again, we have not enough info.

So, too many variables to do much useful maths here, I'm afraid.  That may change if further info comes in or if the original image is posted with intact EXIF data.. but for now,  it does seem to match the helicopter's position / flight path quite accurately. 

[Fila]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And no error range?  You really haven't had any exposure at all to real science or how to do a decent analysis.  In case you are wondering - here's how I would do it - we can safely assume the aircraft is a commercial airliner and a commercial airliner has a usual range of speeds when near a city/airport (I'll let you look up that range).  If your exposure was X seconds long, and the airliner covered Y degrees in the field of view (which we can get from your lens focal length / zoom setting) then it's a fairly simple calculation and will give you the *range* of distances that might apply.

No error range. That was my conservative estimate.., a minimum. Maximum 50kms. away.

There were two aircraft tailing each other for approx 30 - 40 minutes before leaving.., and nowhere near an airport. So the usual "range of speed" wouldn't apply. Also.., I don't live in a major city. Planes will take off from a main airport 100kms away.., and fly over me. But by the time they get here.., they are around their desired cruising altitude.

The aircraft were flying together, and randomly. I get a lot of jets in my area.., usually in pairs.., one following the other a bit later.., and judging from their speed, distances covered and altitudes they achieved that night.., its most likely they were just military jets training. It happens a lot. They were moving way too fast for cessnas etc. These things were fast, and agile.

Aircraft flying towards me, then turning away. Jet 1 is already heading away from the camera.

At one point.., the 1st jet flew directly away from my.., on such a perfect angle going up, and away that he remained still like a yellow star for around 1 minute. Looked really cool.

 

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Again, no error range, no statement of assumptions - where the hell did you pluck those numbers from?  And why did you give a HEIGHT and a distance TRAVELED (NO distance to the chopper), and then just say your planes are 'much further'?  You are not showing figures that are comparable - you don't give that guess until later?  SHOW YOUR WORK, and think about what you are doing..

The information has already been posted in this thread. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21461/lets-talk-about-that-mysterious-rocket-launch-over-whidbey-island-photo-from-washington

I gave height and distance because that is what was provided.., and that's all I could estimate in my image.

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

and then just say your planes are 'much further'?  You are not showing figures that are comparable

I know what aircraft look like 500 meters high from my experience with drones (wt telemetry) and having planes fly over or nearby.., and taking images at night and seeing planes at various heights which gives a sense of perspective.., or at least.. ,a reference aircraft relative to each other.

Not sure how to prove or explain how the human mind is capable of this.., but I am open to suggestions.

These jets / planes were not flying 600 meters high. Its just obvious to me.., because I took the photo and could see the area. The distance is estimated to be 20 kilometres away.., based on my own observation and understanding of the area. This is just a guess however. I know that the objects in my image were nowhere near 600 in height, and 1km in distance. They were much further. I am not sure how to prove this. I am basing this off my own experience. However.., if you wish to spend time on my image.., then please do. It would be interesting in a way.

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

A perfect example of changing the goalposts - you completely ignore the point and then try to change the subject.  Busted.

No. I am not "changing goal posts". It was a suggestion. My interpretation of the issue. You think a camera wouldn't have picked up the object in a 2nd image. I said I know what you mean. Would a camera pick up a chopper with searchlight etc etc...

Nothing has changed.

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

That's just a ludicrous comparison.  You have no baseline data about the strength of the searchlights from either source, haven't taken into account viewing angle, the illumination of the clouds, sensitivity of eye versus camera etc, etc.  You try to simplify with these ridiculous analogies - but the situation is complex, and you are simply demonstrating how little clue you have.  You really need to send a few years learning stuff and then pop back.. or pick a different hobby..

No baseline data, no. Sorry. It would be much brighter than NAV lights however. If I can pick up NAV lights.., I can pick up a searchlight.

What about the viewing angle and clouds? I don't think this has anything to do with eye sensitivity. We are discussing the image. Not what people saw. Sorry, not being rude or anything. I actually want to know.

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

if you actually showed some work like this, your 'analysis' and guesses might be taken more seriously...

They are not taken seriously now by anyone here because not once have you shown you can do that sort of thinking, and when people point out flaws in your attempts instead of addressing them, you just brush them off and change the goalposts - in fact you gave a wonderful example of that here.

ChrLzs.., can you please calm down. I just expected another image (thinking out loud, and I stated why there wasn't one).., and to still see the searchlight in that image. You and Stereo asked why I would think that. I have explained why would, based on my own experience. I'm happy to keep discussing it so long as we keep the conversation moving forward. I'd really like us to stop bickering about being wrong. I really don't care about being wrong when I am discussing things openly.

TBH, I don't really understand what you mean by "goal posts being moved". I'm not good with hints and all that. You'll need to be straight forward with me. What am I changing?

Here is an example of me using a formula to get the size of an object in an image. The formula is sound.., and the camera specs are an example to show how it works.: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/316365-another-released-video/?do=findComment&comment=6413737

Edited June 15, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

Again, the problem is that the base is on an island with several small towns on it. There is a public ferry to the island. The base on that island does not have launch facilities.

Not a place for a secret test of an easily observable rocket. Not a place where launches are performed.

It is not too hard to look at the NAS, the naval air station, on Google. There is an airfield there. Look at the planes on the tarmac. There are fighters and some larger planes that are both prop and jet. Notice that the larger planes all have long things sticking out of the rear of the plane. Not some - all. I'll leave it up to the reader to figure out what the planes are. My guess is that this is what the base does and its not launching a missile that would have been really loud at the nearest town only 3 miles away.

[lilthor]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The base on that island does not have launch facilities.

A ballistic missile launch from this area is not as impossible as you're suggesting.  There is a large nuclear submarine base nearby and Ohio Class subs regularly cruise these waters.

In fact, the Trident submarine base at Bangor is the only nuclear submarine base serving the Pacific Fleet.  It's huge.

[stereologist]

40 minutes ago, lilthor said:

A ballistic missile launch from this area is not as impossible as you're suggesting.  There is a large nuclear submarine base nearby and Ohio Class subs regularly cruise these waters.

In fact, the Trident submarine base at Bangor is the only nuclear submarine base serving the Pacific Fleet.  It's huge.

Sorry to disagree, but how did this not wake anyone at all? No one noticed?  Did the navy luck out after this supposed launch close to land?

 

[lilthor]

16 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Sorry to disagree, but how did this not wake anyone at all? No one noticed?  Did the navy luck out after this supposed launch close to land?

 

Not sure what you are disagreeing with.  Your post suggested there is no capability for launching missiles in the area.  That is clearly wrong.

As to whether the object in the photo is an actual missile, I have no idea.  I also don't know how much noise a sub-launched missile makes, but a short trip north from the Trident base to a point between Mutiny Bay on Whidbey Island and Oak Bay on the Kitsap Peninsula puts a sub at least 4 miles from land on either side.

ETA: And not too much further north puts a sub in the Strait of Juan de Fuca...a much larger expanse of open water.

Edited June 15, 2018 by lilthor

[stereologist]

18 minutes ago, lilthor said:

Not sure what you are disagreeing with.  Your post suggested there is no capability for launching missiles in the area.  That is clearly wrong.

As to whether the object in the photo is an actual missile, I have no idea.  I also don't know how much noise a sub-launched missile makes, but a short trip north from the Trident base to a point between Mutiny Bay on Whidbey Island and Oak Bay on the Kitsap Peninsula puts a sub at least 4 miles from land on either side.

ETA: And not too much further north puts a sub in the Strait of Juan de Fuca...a much larger expanse of open water.

Actually I was referring to the base on Whidbey Island. I've referred to that base several times.  You are clearly not following the thread and the posts I wrote.

I suppose if we want to go off on another tangent why use a submarine? 

 

[lilthor]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I suppose if we want to go off on another tangent why use a submarine?

Ermm...because, for launching missiles, submarines are the only suitable platform in the region...?

What do I win?

[lilthor]

11 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You are clearly not following the thread and the posts I wrote.

I actually did read your posts and it was obvious you had no idea this area is crawling with missile-capable nuclear subs.

Now you know.

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, lilthor said:

I actually did read your posts and it was obvious you had no idea this area is crawling with missile-capable nuclear subs.

Now you know.

I did know. I do know. 

Just another effort on your part to cover up your foolish mistake.

 

 

[stereologist]

15 minutes ago, lilthor said:

Ermm...because, for launching missiles, submarines are the only suitable platform in the region...?

What do I win?

Another example of your foolishness.

[lilthor]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I did know. I do know.

At least you're half-correct.  That's progress...

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, lilthor said:

At least you're half-correct.  That's progress...

And your as foolish as ever. 

So please get back to learning to read. It's a must in forum like this.

[ChrLzs]

On 6/15/2018 at 9:23 AM, ChrLzs said:

1. The brightness of the trail in the first is very high and very consistent - extremely bright except where obscured by 'conveniently' positioned bits of that cloud bank.

...

In the interests of correctness, and to prove I don't mind being wrong - this point was ill-thought out!  I was comparing a long exposure to a short daylight exposure.  So *if* it was a rocket launch, yes, it could have left a bright trail all the way..

All the other points still apply....

[Fila]

On 18/06/2018 at 8:12 AM, ChrLzs said:

In the interests of correctness, and to prove I don't mind being wrong - this point was ill-thought out!  I was comparing a long exposure to a short daylight exposure.  So *if* it was a rocket launch, yes, it could have left a bright trail all the way..

All the other points still apply....

I countered your points.....

Saying "all other points stand" is not a sufficient rebuttal.

Those who "liked" this post.., feel free to jump in at anytime.

[ChrLzs]

Ok, Fila.

I think it's time to .. call.

Assume for a microsecond (or for as long as you need), that I accept all your 'counters'.  Now  .. you go on ahead and provide us with an analysis and your conclusions / hypothesis / theory.

Take as much time as you need, and do be careful to not stumble over anything (eg lack of knowledge), or forget to tell us your assumptions.. you know, be all sciency - ask your (alleged) uni supervisors if you need guidance...

So here's your chance.  Take this one and run with it, and show us just how awesome you are, and answer the question on all of our lips - what does Fila think UFO's are, other than..

.. well... you know..

Unidentified Flying Objects.

 

And if you don't wanna do that, why not?  If it's not likely to lead anywhere, why do you think that is, and how do you propose to fix it?

 

In other words, just stop waffling and whining and DO IT.

 

[Fila]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

I think it's time to .. call. Assume for a microsecond (or for as long as you need), that I accept all your 'counters'.  Now  .. you go on ahead and provide us with an analysis and your conclusions / hypothesis / theory.

Take as much time as you need, and do be careful to not stumble over anything (eg lack of knowledge), or forget to tell us your assumptions.. you know, be all sciency - ask your (alleged) uni supervisors if you need guidance...

I already explained how I contacted those in charge of the camera's.., who explained it was actually the last image for the night. This is why we don't see a 2nd image.., with a similar, but distant streak.

[ChrLzs]

Wow.  Fabulous analysis.  I particularly liked the conclusions.