- Aug 26, 2005
- Reaction score
I think it travels too fast to be a helicopter. A bird is more likely. Smaller, and closer. A small drone is also a possibility.
The link is still current - I've just opened it and it's fine.here are a few clips for your enjoyment 1st one is recent other 2 are a little older but i havnt seen them.
Links are all dead. No archived version of the media content could be found.
Seeing as the object is extremely blurry, doesn't that suggest it's being videoed at a great distance - even though the full video is not what you would call 'sharp.' A bird - or a drone would not be visible at all, I would imagine? Especially as the rest of the video doesn't show any other Seagulls and the like.I think it travels too fast to be a helicopter. A bird is more likely. Smaller, and closer. A small drone is also a possibility.
Perhaps it’s the same thing that was in that indistinct Loch Ness Monster pic.
I wouldn't rule out a flying insect.I think it travels too fast to be a helicopter. A bird is more likely. Smaller, and closer. A small drone is also a possibility.
And I totally agree "EnoaGaia,' that's what makes definition on any video so ambiguous.I wouldn't rule out a flying insect.
The apparent tilting Sid notes is consistent with an object turning (e.g., an aircraft banking). Any such turn involves a 3D frame of reference.
The more general issue is that the apparent direction and speed of the object is seen in 2D, and this affects how one interprets what is actually a 3D scene.
Unless one knows the distance of the object and its path relative to the camera there's little that can be reliably said about either its size or its speed.
Well 'michael59,' your thoughts and perceptions are the exact same as my own on this one!Okay, Sid and thank you for doing those still photos.
This is why I believe it must be massive in size. I think if it was a helicopter we would be able to see it. Nothing else in this video clip is blurry. You can even distinguish the different colors in the water. For it to be that blurry it must be far away and for it to be that size at that distance, it must be really large. Too large to be a helicopter?
'eburacum,' "fascinating." can you tag exactly what these captures are (below) that I managed to catch moving through this very "enlightening" video.Agreed. There is a solitary satellite glint, five Starlink satellites in a row, and the aurora, both green and red. Very nice.
...then a lot of city lights come into view as the ISS travels over inhabited country. This artificial illuminance issuing from the ground is generally known as 'skyglow' or light pollution.
You can also see the 'airglow', the faint, constant, transparent luminescence visible at the top of the atmosphere. This is a natural phenomenon and can be seen from space very clearly, but is barely visible from the ground.
Thank you 'eburacum.' "Nice One!"1/ Yes, that's an inhabited section of the Earth. Not every inhabited part of the world has light pollution/skyglow; sadly, North Korea is almost completely dark as seem from space.
2/ Yes. Someone with better knowledge of the ISS could probably tell you what part that is. I'd guess a solar panel or radiator.
3/ There are lots of satellites in that clip - it is a timelapse image, and it is sped up significantly, so we can see a lot of stuff. Apart from the Starlink group, I've no idea what we are looking at, and those two moving in parallel are intriguing.
This has quite coincidentally come up on YouTube and a delightful snapshot of its time.
Sorry but all those "supposedly" and "allegedly" comments add up to an awful lot of "citations required" in that YouTube video.None of these accounts are 'latest', but I couldn't find anywhere else to park this.
The Russian case I haven't heard before. The Russians shot down a saucer and the surviving aliens blew themselves up in a small nuclear explosion, killing Russian soldiers in the process.
Bear with me as I set some context ...What's your best guess as to their cause, EG?