Are these birds, planes or satellites, or meteors?

[lucas_]

Dear experts,

What are these things (dozens of them):



Are these birds, planes or satellites, or meteors? Has anyone seen anything like these?

 

[pinball1970]

Dear experts,

What are these things (dozens of them):



Are these birds, planes or satellites, or meteors? Has anyone seen anything like these?

The link does not work for me, can you post in another format please?

 

[lucas_]

The link does not work for me, can you post in another format please?

Is youtube blocked in UK?

try to copy and paste these... just connect the "you" and "tube" as one word.

https://www.you tube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=Qo8ReWwoOQE

 

[pinball1970]

Is youtube blocked in UK?

try to copy and paste these... just connect the "you" and "tube" as one word.

https://www.you tube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=Qo8ReWwoOQE

YT usually ok, what's the title of the vid? I'll open in another window

 

[lucas_]

YT usually ok, what's the title of the vid? I'll open in another window

click the link


or

 

[Klystron]

The motion of the flock appears bird-like. If filmed from an aircraft, the altitude would help decide. From reading books Moscow is surrounded by avian flight paths. Filming migratory birds at night, if true, is quite a coup.

 

[pinball1970]

click the link


or

That's cool.
No idea what it is though, @mfb posts on space type stuff

 

[lucas_]

That's cool.
No idea what it is though, @mfb posts on space type stuff

Klystron said they were flocks of birds. Usually how high can birds fly?

If they were satellites. Can they move that fast?

 

[Klystron]

Klystron said they were flocks of birds. Usually how high can birds fly?

If they were satellites. Can they move that fast?

Correction. I said the motion of the objects appeared bird-like; that if the objects are birds flying between the camera and the moon that their motion seems consistent with a flock of birds.

Without analysis we could be watching almost anything including a composite video. A fun interesting video in any case. Thanks.

 

[lucas_]

Correction. I said the motion of the objects appeared bird-like; that if the objects are birds flying between the camera and the moon that their motion seems consistent with a flock of birds.

Without analysis we could be watching almost anything including a composite video. A fun interesting video in any case. Thanks.

Here is the zoomed out city shot before the camera was zoomed to the moon (jump to 19 seconds):

 

[Klystron]

I watched the longer video. The lead credits are Portuguese? The audio Russian? Have you heard/seen a translation into English?

I mistook the background sounds for aircraft engines but the wider shot puts the camera at ground level in the city; so, likely traffic noise. The circular artifacts that appear around the dark objects are confusing, but otherwise they resemble a flock of large birds. Could be an illusion or more artifacts but does anyone else see flapping wings?

I do not see motion consistent with ballistic behaviour. One would expect a meteor entering the atmosphere to glow against the dark sky at some point while these objects are only backlit by the full moon. One would also expect airplanes flying in such close formation to display safety lights. Also would expect satellites in orbit to reflect sunlight when the aspect is favourable.

Birds or bats are not ruled out. I have seen large bats flying at night in Asia and small bats in North America. These objects seem to be flying higher than bats normally hunt and, the "wing beats", if that is what we see, seem more consistent with birds than bats.

I just noticed this thread is in an Astronomy forum, not general discussion.

 

[berkeman]

That's not how formations of planes and birds fly together. They would be flying in a "V" formation or "Echelon" formation for efficiency.

They look more like satellites to me, and since there have been recent lauches that released a gaggle of small Internet communication satellites all at once, that would be my vote. @mfb has posted a thread or two about those launches. The timing of the video looks about right for one of those launches, but I'm not sure without searching out the launch and satellite release profile info.

 

[berkeman]

Here are a couple of the threads I was thinking of...

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/satellite-internet-constellations.971771/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/starlink-launch-first-60-satellites.972023/#post-6179480

 

[Klystron]

Thanks for this new (to me) information on satellite clusters. Also explains the circular shapes.

 

[mfb]

Certainly not satellites in low Earth orbit. They move at 7 km/s in a distance of 500-1000 km or ~0.5 to 1 degree per second - they cross the disk of the Moon in just 0.5-1 seconds.

Geostationary satellites need ~2 minutes, but they shouldn't have such a density. In addition they are in sunlight nearly the whole time. They only enter the shadow of Earth briefly every orbit in two eclipse seasons close to the equinoxes, end of February to mid April and late August to mid October. If the video is from May 18 then geostationary satellites are bright spots, not dark.

I estimate 1 minute to cross the Moon. For objects nearby this means 2 minutes for 1 degree. If the objects are 600 m away they move with 5 meters per minute. Too slow for anything flying, even if we take into account that we don't see radial motion. 6 km away, 50 meters per minute? Still too slow.

Dead pixels and the zooming is done electronically? Dark spots on the telescope?

Helium balloons released by a school or some other event?

Thanks for this new (to me) information on satellite clusters. Also explains the circular shapes.

This seems to be coming from the resolution of the video. The Starlink satellites have the shape of a long rectangle, by the way (from the solar panels), and they were launched May 24, a week after this video.

 

[lucas_]

Certainly not satellites in low Earth orbit. They move at 7 km/s in a distance of 500-1000 km or ~0.5 to 1 degree per second - they cross the disk of the Moon in just 0.5-1 seconds.

Geostationary satellites need ~2 minutes, but they shouldn't have such a density. In addition they are in sunlight nearly the whole time. They only enter the shadow of Earth briefly every orbit in two eclipse seasons close to the equinoxes, end of February to mid April and late August to mid October. If the video is from May 18 then geostationary satellites are bright spots, not dark.

I estimate 1 minute to cross the Moon. For objects nearby this means 2 minutes for 1 degree. If the objects are 600 m away they move with 5 meters per minute. Too slow for anything flying, even if we take into account that we don't see radial motion. 6 km away, 50 meters per minute? Still too slow.

Dead pixels and the zooming is done electronically? Dark spots on the telescope?

Helium balloons released by a school or some other event?
This seems to be coming from the resolution of the video. The Starlink satellites have the shape of a long rectangle, by the way (from the solar panels), and they were launched May 24, a week after this video.

If Earth referenced objects were traveling at 100 knots. How long would it take to cross the disk of the moon?

The USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group with the most sophisticated Aegis radar that can simultaneously track 100 objects were able to detect similar fleet of objects that descends from the higher atmosphere at daytime and maintain position at 100 knots. Jump to about 4:00 minutes in this video to see the photos and radars:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...8C8316050BF604138DB38C8316050BF6041&FORM=VIRE

 

[mfb]

If Earth referenced objects were traveling at 100 knots. How long would it take to cross the disk of the moon?

That depends on their distance, see the example numbers I gave. The Moon has half a degree in the sky, or ~1/100 as diameter/distance ratio. Find the time the objects need to travel 1/100 their distance to the camera.

 

[lucas_]

That depends on their distance, see the example numbers I gave. The Moon has half a degree in the sky, or ~1/100 as diameter/distance ratio. Find the time the objects need to travel 1/100 their distance to the camera.

Let's assume these were the size of jetfighters (or propeller based airplane) and the speed is 100 knots (I read "For jet airliners the stall speeds may range from around 100 knots when light (~185 km/h, ~115 mph) to maybe 130 knots (~240 km/h, ~150 mph) when loaded", what is the stall speed of typical jet fighters)?

So assuming they were the size of jet fighters. If the speed is 100 knots. How far should it be from ground in the case the moon is 30 degrees above the horizon (in the city backgrounded video)?

 

[mfb]

Just... calculate it?
100 knots * 100 minutes = 300 km away
30 degrees above the horizon would mean half of that above the ground, or 150 km. That is in space. Give or take a factor 2 depending on the flight direction.

You could find a flight profile where the jets are rising or descending by just the right amount to have a nearly radial motion, but that isn't very realistic.

 

[lucas_]

Just... calculate it?
100 knots * 100 minutes = 300 km away
30 degrees above the horizon would mean half of that above the ground, or 150 km. That is in space. Give or take a factor 2 depending on the flight direction.

You could find a flight profile where the jets are rising or descending by just the right amount to have a nearly radial motion, but that isn't very realistic.

Let's say these objects were the Russian space force and 150 km above or in space and traveling at 100 knots. Would it move with the speed just like the unknown dark objects in the video?

Or for the objects to be 150km or in space, what speed should it be so it can match the speed of the objects as they cross the disk of the moon in the video?

 

[russ_watters]

Klystron said they were flocks of birds. Usually how high can birds fly?

If they were satellites. Can they move that fast?

Was this filmed from the ground? As almost points, the altitude can't be determined.

And regardless of altitude these objects were flying incredibly slowly, not fast. That's why I'd consider a cluster of balloons in almost still air possible.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's say these objects were the Russian space force and 150 km above or in space and traveling at 100 knots. Would it move with the speed just like the unknown dark objects in the video?

Or for the objects to be 150km or in space, what speed should it be so it can match the speed of the objects as they cross the disk of the moon in the video?

No. None of that makes any sense. Don't do that. We're indulging a little fun in your Death Star thread, but this is a science forum.

Or for the objects to be 150km or in space, what speed should it be so it can match the speed of the objects as they cross the disk of the moon in the video?

Do you know any trigonometry? Can you draw a triangle to describe the distances?

 

[mfb]

Let's say these objects were the Russian space force and 150 km above or in space and traveling at 100 knots.

They would fall down and exceed 100 knots within seconds. 100 knots is an airspeed: A speed where wings can keep you up. In space you just fall down.

Or for the objects to be 150km or in space, what speed should it be so it can match the speed of the objects as they cross the disk of the moon in the video?

But that's what I calculated! I used your speed to get a height. The same height leads to the same speed in reverse.

 

[lucas_]

They would fall down and exceed 100 knots within seconds. 100 knots is an airspeed: A speed where wings can keep you up. In space you just fall down.But that's what I calculated! I used your speed to get a height. The same height leads to the same speed in reverse.

They are likely balloons then.

At what height can balloons travel completely horizontally (after they reached the ceiling, and what's the ceiling of balloons how many miles up the air)?

At what distance should the balloons be shown as dots in the disk and what speed should they be moving to match the behavior in the video?

 

[lucas_]

They would fall down and exceed 100 knots within seconds. 100 knots is an airspeed: A speed where wings can keep you up. In space you just fall down.

You said "In space you just fall down"? But why do satellites were able to be either stationary or moving in space without falling down? I was talking about in stable orbit. So you simply mean 150 kilometers up still in escape velocity or height? What height are those satellites then?

The logical explanations are balloons. But if these were large objects and between the Earth and moon (such as these just for sake of illustration), they could be traveling at fast speed to cross the disk of the moon and appear just like in the video, right?

But that's what I calculated! I used your speed to get a height. The same height leads to the same speed in reverse.

 

[lucas_]

Was this filmed from the ground? As almost points, the altitude can't be determined.

And regardless of altitude these objects were flying incredibly slowly, not fast. That's why I'd consider a cluster of balloons in almost still air possible.

If these were space debris (or rocks) in between Earth and moon. Can't they move fast but appear slow when filmed at ground? When you mentioned the word "altitude", did it mean below the height of those satellites or with air/atmosphere?

 

[mfb]

At what height can balloons travel completely horizontally (after they reached the ceiling, and what's the ceiling of balloons how many miles up the air)?

At any distance, it depends on the balloon.
The speed depends on the distance, and given the multiple calculations that are now in the thread I'm sure you can calculate it for whatever numbers you like.

You said "In space you just fall down"? But why do satellites were able to be either stationary or moving in space without falling down? I was talking about in stable orbit. So you simply mean 150 kilometers up still in escape velocity or height? What height are those satellites then?

This is also something I discussed before: In low Earth orbit satellites need over 7 km/s to stay in orbit. In higher orbits the speed goes down and for a geostationary orbit it is somewhat similar to what we see here - but there the satellites are in sunlight and there are not enough to explain these dots. That also applies to everything else you ask about in space.

The logical explanations are balloons. But if these were large objects and between the Earth and moon (such as these just for sake of illustration), they could be traveling at fast speed to cross the disk of the moon and appear just like in the video, right?

No, the size of the object is completely irrelevant here.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The objects are in hard focus but the Moon is not. That suggests that they must be very close because a lens focussed at 'infinity' would make the Moon image as sharp as a satellite. Also, they are dark, which means they must be in the Earth's shadow. That would imply that they are either very close to Earth or the Moon is near - overhead; the actual time of the film is relevant here.

If the things were satellites then surely they would appear as very bright dots when they emerged from the Earth's shadow. Did anyone see and film them in that conditions?
The shapes are round and no wings are evident (they would surely be with that sharpness of focus) so I guess they would have to be a flight of balloons. If they were normal plastic envelopes then radar wouldn't see them.

OTOH, it looks very like a spoof!

 

[mfb]

The objects are in hard focus but the Moon is not.

I got a different impression. The video is just zoomed in - everything is smeared, the dark dots are not an exception.

At the time the second large group is close to the right edge of the Moon two of the objects are close together, you can see that their motion is not uniform.

Helium balloons sounds like the most plausible option to me, unless the dark spots are from video editing.

 

[lucas_]

At any distance, it depends on the balloon.
The speed depends on the distance, and given the multiple calculations that are now in the thread I'm sure you can calculate it for whatever numbers you like.This is also something I discussed before: In low Earth orbit satellites need over 7 km/s to stay in orbit. In higher orbits the speed goes down and for a geostationary orbit it is somewhat similar to what we see here - but there the satellites are in sunlight and there are not enough to explain these dots. That also applies to everything else you ask about in space.No, the size of the object is completely irrelevant here.

In other situations where there are large objects near the moon. It should behave like that moving slowly too but with shadows, right? At what angle or distance to the moon the shadows can not be visible but object is still seen?

Someday if we will have large sails across the moon. How should they look like or behave when video taken from the ground of earth?

 

[lucas_]

I got a different impression. The video is just zoomed in - everything is smeared, the dark dots are not an exception.

At the time the second large group is close to the right edge of the Moon two of the objects are close together, you can see that their motion is not uniform.

Helium balloons sounds like the most plausible option to me, unless the dark spots are from video editing.

Yes, there are very likely balloons, you can see the objects getting farther and farther away into the horizon. They don't seem to be moving uniformly.

I hope the US Navy can get you to analyze the radar Tic Tac sightings. Here they move in uniform or in regular formations. The objects travel instantaneously from above and stopped suddenly. This would crush the occupants from high G's. So it's likely there were just ethereal or not made of our matter. This is very important because it can prove the existence of Lorentz Ether.

(btw don't miss my last message about large sails in moon someday and how they would appear in earth)

 

[sophiecentaur]

At the Moon’s distance the objects would be tens of km across. They would be very bright. If what was seen was shadows then the objects would also have been seen as bright discs.
They have to be smallish and near Earth in order to account for what was seen.
Balloons or Spoof. Why believe anything on YouTube without corroboration if it doesn’t make perfect sense?
If you take that vid seriously then you’d have to believe the Salisbury poisonings didn’t happen.

 

[lucas_]

Yes, there are very likely balloons, you can see the objects getting farther and farther away into the horizon. They don't seem to be moving uniformly.

I hope the US Navy can get you to analyze the radar Tic Tac sightings. Here they move in uniform or in regular formations. The objects travel instantaneously from above and stopped suddenly. This would crush the occupants from high G's. So it's likely there were just ethereal or not made of our matter. This is very important because it can prove the existence of Lorentz Ether.

(btw don't miss my last message about large sails in moon someday and how they would appear in earth)

Here's another take. The balloon like objects were obviously moving away from the camera shooter (the perspective and movement angle doesn't show movement across the disk horizontally). Now since they are moving away. They may appear slow even when they could be fast. So they could be experimental strike drones too, isn't it? I read this suggestion in the net. They are moving away so appear slow but they could be fast. What you think of this?

It's not spoof video (or edited) because it's much easier to create objects that move horizontally.. but they are obviously moving away into the distant horizon.

 

[mfb]

In other situations where there are large objects near the moon. It should behave like that moving slowly too but with shadows, right? At what angle or distance to the moon the shadows can not be visible but object is still seen?

Someday if we will have large sails across the moon. How should they look like or behave when video taken from the ground of earth?

Something casting shadows on the Moon (instead of blocking the view) would be seen worldwide and extremely obvious in the night sky. We would have seen that in the news.

I hope the US Navy can get you to analyze the radar Tic Tac sightings. Here they move in uniform or in regular formations. The objects travel instantaneously from above and stopped suddenly. This would crush the occupants from high G's. So it's likely there were just ethereal or not made of our matter. This is very important because it can prove the existence of Lorentz Ether.

This makes no sense at all.

Here's another take. The balloon like objects were obviously moving away from the camera shooter. Now since they are moving away. They may appear slow even when they could be fast. So they could be experimental strike drones too, isn't it? I read this suggestion in the net. They are moving away so appear slow but they could be fast. What you think of this?

All aligned with ~1% precision with the direction the camera happens to point to? While flying in no particular formation? How unlikely is that? And why "experimental strike drones" in particular?

Take a step back and have a look at the thread please. Are you interested in figuring out what this is, or do you just look for support for whatever conclusion you seem to have already?

 

[lucas_]

Something casting shadows on the Moon (instead of blocking the view) would be seen worldwide and extremely obvious in the night sky. We would have seen that in the news.This makes no sense at all.All aligned with ~1% precision with the direction the camera happens to point to? While flying in no particular formation? How unlikely is that? And why "experimental strike drones" in particular?

Take a step back and have a look at the thread please. Are you interested in figuring out what this is, or do you just look for support for whatever conclusion you seem to have already?

Well. They are likely balloons then that are moving away into the horizons. You can see the 2 close balloons have relative motions as they move away into the horizon in slant manner. Meaning not aligned with 1% precision.

About the US. Navy. Their latter conclusions was the ethereal Tic Tac were following them across the Atlantic because attracted to their nuclear power engines as well as studying nuclear facilities around the globe. This is more hard to swallow unless you also a witness. But that's another thread (or none since the topic or anything that doesn't support the Standard Model is not allowed here).

 

[sophiecentaur]

But that's another thread (or none since the topic or anything that doesn't support the Standard Model is not allowed here).

That's the rules in PF - and for good reasons. There are plenty of other forums that will discuss absolutely anything and they are not interested in the Physics and that little word "rigour".

 

[mfb]

(or none since the topic or anything that doesn't support the Standard Model is not allowed here)

That is not true and the Beyond the Standard Model forum is full of evidence of the contrary (that's what the forum is for). It has to be published in a reputable journal, however. Random websites making wild claims are not a good source for science.

 

[lucas_]

So it's either balloons or spoof.

Here's why I don't think it's a spoof (or hoax).

You can see the balloons traveling from topmost to bottom trajectories. In the multiple balloons frames, you can see the two close balloons getting further away. This can happen if the balloons are receding away farther and farther instead of just crossing the moon disk. If it's a fake, why not just let the balloons travel horizontally. Instead it's 3D with perspective and depth.

Who doesn't agree with me the balloons are traveling farther and farther and not just across the disk horizonally? And why do you think so?

 

[davenn]

Are these birds, planes or satellites, or meteors? Has anyone seen anything like these?

well not planes, satellites or meteors as the motion is too slow

 

[Klystron]

Humans tend to to see what we expect to see, what we are trained to see. Rookie police right out of the academy when they see "furtive hand movements" perceive a weapon where most of us might expect / see a cell phone. As a hobbyist bird watcher, I am conditioned to expect birds, though usually not in flight at night.

The title of this "discussion" thread listed birds first apparently without basis. Member @pinball1970 was probably correct that the video quality is too poor for rational discussion. "Spoof" does not necessarily imply a deliberate fake; but misdirection. A spoofed IP or email address is still an address, just not the the intended address.

 

[DaveC426913]

Since this is nearly a full moon, the sun is behind the Earth. The Earth's shadow will be a cone extending out well beyond the Moon to one side. The objects could be (almost) anywhere in that cone, out almost to the Moon. But can't be very near the Moon, else they too would be in sunlight, as the Moon is.

So the fact that these objects are in shadow doesn't tell us a lot about their altitude.Let's say they take two minutes to cross the Moon - that seems about right.

The Moon is .5 degrees wide. So at a given altitude, they will be traveling at the approximate derived speed:
,
s=(2*pi*a)/720*30.
where

a is the altitude (km)
720 (360/0.5) is 360 degrees divided by the Moon's width (unitless)
30 (60/2) is the conversion factor to hours (hr)
(this method only works for small angles)

Alt (km)	Speed (km/h)
10	2.6
100	26
1,000	260
10,000	2,600
100,000	26,000

Is that about right?

Those velocities make no sense for anything in space, so the objects are limited to the atmo (< 100km) - meaning they are moving no faster than about 26km/h.

Can't be planes.

 

[lucas_]

I went to this place in Taiwan before where you can fly sky lanterns. When I told the lady I'd buy extra. She told me it's illegal to fly this in the city like Taipei.



What other countries do you fly these too? The video of the moon spots is located in Russia. Is it legal to fly even normal balloons in Russia? If it's illegal. Then the black spots could be drones. Who own drones here? Do you fly these at night? I was always interested in drones but don't have time to pursue these hobby yet.

 

[lucas_]

I went to this place in Taiwan before where you can fly sky lanterns. When I told the lady I'd buy extra. She told me it's illegal to fly this in the city like Taipei.



What other countries do you fly these too? The video of the moon spots is located in Russia. Is it legal to fly even normal balloons in Russia? If it's illegal. Then the black spots could be drones. Who own drones here? Do you fly these at night? I was always interested in drones but don't have time to pursue these hobby yet.

What would happen if balloons got sucked into jet engines, has this happened before?

The moon video occurred in Moscow. There are many airliners there who can suck into these balloons. What is civil authority position about balloons released into city? Is it legal?

About drones. Can anyone share how do drones move in formation when flying? Maybe it's more difficult to make them move in formation because one wrong move can produce collisions like dominos? Also perhaps besides civilian drones, even tactical attack drones fly randomly with larger separation for safety?

 

[lucas_]

Since this is nearly a full moon, the sun is behind the Earth. The Earth's shadow will be a cone extending out well beyond the Moon to one side. The objects could be (almost) anywhere in that cone, out almost to the Moon. But can't be very near the Moon, else they too would be in sunlight, as the Moon is.

So the fact that these objects are in shadow doesn't tell us a lot about their altitude.Let's say they take two minutes to cross the Moon - that seems about right.

The Moon is .5 degrees wide. So at a given altitude, they will be traveling at the approximate derived speed:
,
s=(2*pi*a)/720*30.
where

a is the altitude (km)
720 (360/0.5) is 360 degrees divided by the Moon's width (unitless)
30 (60/2) is the conversion factor to hours (hr)
(this method only works for small angles)

Alt (km)	Speed (km/h)
10	2.6
100	26
1,000	260
10,000	2,600
100,000	26,000

Is that about right?

Those velocities make no sense for anything in space, so the objects are limited to the atmo (< 100km) - meaning they are moving no faster than about 26km/h.

Can't be planes.

Seriously.

If you will notice, all the black objects are "descending". This make sense if they were traveling farther and farther away into the distance horizon as it moves to the right.

If you will notice the 2 close dots at bottom of the formation. They are accelerating and decelerating from each other as if to avoid collisions. Balloons can't do that. One comment in the youtube mentioned it's advanced drones. That's why I mentioned drones.

We have eliminated them being birds, satellites, meteors, planes, star destroyers, and narrowing them to balloons or drones or spoof (hoaxes).

Can you refute them being drones? How can video editors produce the hoax (if ever it's that, how do you do that)?

I actually learned a lot from this threads (thanks to all who helped). Once I had a big telescope and can compute resolving power and airy disc and dawes limit. But I didn't study about moving objects. So I'm learning to compute moving target now. It's just that stars don't move that fast so I didn't compute them in my astronomy days.

 

[DaveC426913]

Seriously.

I am not sure whether to take this as agreement or disagreement.

Can you refute them being drones?

Not at all. In fact, quadcopters neatly fall into the optimal range of speed/altitude.

Larger military drones (non-VTOL types) are essentially unmanned airplanes and, as such, I suspect their stall speed is below the minimum required per my chart.

If you will notice the 2 close dots at bottom of the formation. They are accelerating and decelerating from each other as if to avoid collisions. Balloons can't do that.

Don't do that.
You pretended to presume why they are doing what you see ("as if to avoid collisions"), and then tried to eliminate balloons based on that presumption. You don't know why - or how- they are moving in relation to each other.

It is quite plausible that they are balloons being pushed about by varying winds.Word of caution: you have no idea how close any two objects are along your line of sight. Objects that appear close together could in fact be hundreds of yards apart. If true, that implies several things:
1] there is little danger of collision
2] they could be experiencing markedly different air currents
3] parallax would easily explain any apparent relative motion (in fact, almost require it) - and the relative motion will be magnified by the forced perspective.

 

[lucas_]

I am not sure whether to take this as agreement or disagreement.
Not at all. In fact, quadcopters neatly fall into the optimal range of speed/altitude.

Larger military drones (non-VTOL types) are essentially unmanned airplanes and, as such, I suspect their stall speed is below the minimum required per my chart.Don't do that.
You pretended to presume why they are doing what you see ("as if to avoid collisions"), and then tried to eliminate balloons based on that presumption. You don't know why - or how- they are moving in relation to each other.

It is quite plausible that they are balloons being pushed about by varying winds.Word of caution: you have no idea how close any two objects are along your line of sight. Objects that appear close together could in fact be hundreds of yards apart. If true, that implies several things:
1] there is little danger of collision
2] they could be experiencing markedly different air currents
3] parallax would easily explain any apparent relative motion (in fact, almost require it) - and the relative motion will be magnified by the forced perspective.

Very good. So the conclusion is balloons, and we don't have further data to distinguish it from drones. And logic says it's balloons.

Now my last question to you guys is your feedback on what the US Navy has observed.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...316050BF604138DB38C8316050BF6041&&FORM=VRDGAR

Here are some relevant scripts I jot down inside the documentary

"the princeton was equipped with the Navy's most sophisticated radar system, known as the Aegis spy one, it provides a 3D, 360 degree view of the entire battlespace. The US Princeton if you will is the eye and ear of the battlegroup. The sky one can simultaneously track hundreds of air contacts. It can identity virtually anything that flies."

"We were off the coast of San Diego with Nimitz Strike ready to go on deployment.
It didn't fly like an aircraft, it's about 40 feet long, it's white, it has no wings, it has no rotors, it has no control surfaces, It's literally, think of a white tic tac."

(about at 4:38 minutes into the flick)

"But the story started 4 days earlier. When Kevin Day said he started seeing strange tracks in his radar. "Right around the evening of the 10th of november. All of these contacts were popping up in my radar, right up Sta Lina island by los angeles, at first it was like 10 or 12 objects, watching them on display is like watching snowfall in the sky." Day said the ship tracked the unidentified flying object dropping down from the upper atmosphere. And flying south in what appear to be in regular formation, in an altitude of 28,000 feet."

"If you will add them all up, there are well over a hundred contacts."

"28,000 at 100 knots. which is weird, usually things that high don't travel that slowly, because they would fall out of the sky. "

"28,000 feet down to the surface of the ocean. at 0.78 second 24,000 miles per hour over 30 times the speed of sound"

This is impossible in our physics, right? That's why many think they were simply lorentz ether phenomena (or just holograms). But if one were able to manipulate gravity, how can you cancel inertia? Or how do you manipulate inertia?

These things were observed all over the world since the 1940s. What do you they are?

 

[DaveC426913]

Very good. So the conclusion is balloons,

Don't do this either.

There are no conclusions here, only plausibilities.

I find balloons plausible, but it could be many other things - some we have not even thought of yet.

"28,000 feet down to the surface of the ocean. at 0.78 second 24,000 miles per hour over 30 times the speed of sound"

This is an interpretation.
It appears as if that's what happened, if one takes the raw data at face value without any consideration for other interpretations of the data - and the events surrounding the data.

Radar is not infallible. Neither are radar operators.

These things were observed all over the world since the 1940s.

No.

Each and every incident must be analyzed on its own merits.
The moment you start assuming they're all the "same" things, you are half way to a hasty conclusion.

What do you [sic] they are?

They are individual unexplained events - in danger of being lumped into one explanation.

 

[lucas_]

Don't do this either.

There are no conclusions here, only plausibilities.

I find balloons plausible, but it could be many other things - some we have not even thought of yet.This is an interpretation.
It appears as if that's what happened, if one takes the raw data at face value without any consideration for other interpretations of the data - and the events surrounding the data.

Radar is not infallible. Neither are radar operators.

The Tic Tacs were also seen visually. See:

No.

Each and every incident must be analyzed on its own merits.
The moment you start assuming they're all the "same" things, you are half way to a hasty conclusion.They are individual unexplained events - in danger of being lumped into one explanation.

 

[DaveC426913]

The Tic Tacs were also seen visually. See:

What does this have to do with the opening post?

 

[Vanadium 50]

What does this have to do with the opening post?

It was all a lead-up to this.