UFO filmed over New York City - What is it?

[Zoltan]

This video was shot from a plane flying over NYC a few days ago. There's 4 frames of a black object that was captured by the camera's owner. This object appears 24 seconds into the video. Looks interesting, what is it? The video has gone viral on Reddit.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Something prosaic that looks weird because digital cameras produce odd looking artifacts.

 

[MonkeeSage]

This video was shot from a plane flying over NYC a few days ago. There's 4 frames of a black object that was captured by the camera's owner. This object appears 24 seconds into the video. Looks interesting, what is it? The video has gone viral on Reddit.

Is the original a video? The first one posted kind of looks like a slideshow of images, or maybe it's really low frames per second/slowed down, or the camera has a low shutter speed or something? Can you provide any further information about the camera and do you have a link to original video? Those would be helpful in trying to identify it.

At first glance it kind of looks like a flying insect near the camera (in the second video the white bits look a little like light glinting off flapping wings).

 

[deirdre]

Is the original a video? The first one posted kind of looks like a slideshow of images, or maybe it's really low frames per second/slowed down, or the camera has a low shutter speed or something? Can you provide any further information about the camera and do you have a link to original video? Those would be helpful in trying to identify it.

At first glance it kind of looks like a flying insect near the camera (in the second video the white bits look a little like light glinting off flapping wings).

he says he made a video off her Facebook page. taken on an iphone. 2 days ago he says "this was 2 days ago". Florida to New York. sh didnt notice it when filming.
https://www.reddit.com/user/NeedthatCheese/


its not the throgs or whitestone so must be verranza bridge. plane would be banking to land. maybe at LaGuardia?
looks like a balloon to me.

 

[Duke]

That "slideshow" is the original video slowed down so you can see the four frames in question. I'm just bringing this to the forum's attention. If you'd like to read the near-800 comments on the original post below, be my guest

I added the link for you.

I'm not interested in discussing "bugs" flying 3,000 feet above land while being filmed outside a plane's window (at 300+ MPH.) Freely theorize amongst yourselves.

I uploaded the video at normal speed.

Reddit thread NYC UAP

What's the source of the "3000 ft above land" and "300+ MPH" parameters? Do we know the a/c flight number and date?

 

[deirdre]

What's the source of the "3000 ft above land" and "300+ MPH" parameters? Do we know the a/c flight number and date?

that seems to be the height of planes right now going over.

interestingly they are descending pretty rapidly. (which makes sense as the airport isnt that far away.)

and they arent banking to Laguardia.
https://www.flightradar24.com/RPA5651/348e0e6f




this guy was further back at 3100feet, took me a while to hit the printscreen key




300 seems too fast. im getting 159ish knots

 

[Duke]

that seems to be the height of planes right now going over.

interestingly they are descending pretty rapidly. (which makes sense as the airport isnt that far away.)

and they arent banking to Laguardia.
https://www.flightradar24.com/RPA5651/348e0e6f




this guy was further back at 3100feet, took me a while to hit the printscreen key




300 seems too fast. im getting 159ish knots

Which was my point for asking. I've flown into Laguardia many times. I could believe the 3K(ish) ft AGL, but not the 300+ mph. Much too fast for that altitude, I would have thought closer to 150-200 mph. Not even sure going 300+ mph at that altitude is even legal per FAA regs.

 

[Duke]

My 300+ MPH was only a guess, so 159 knots is more factual.

Guessing is frowned upon here.

 

[deirdre]

Oh OK. Sorry. I guess you have to put in 9 years and 2,477 posts for guessing to be overlooked on here. My bad.

the difference is you started this thread, and assumedly have read the long Reddit thread. It's assumed you are presenting data from that thread.

as far as your "what is it?" question in OP..everything is going to be a guess because its just a blob with no definition.

(P.S any ufo video that refuses to share date, time, location can just be dismissed. If the Reddit poster really thought it was something interesting he would have provided that information)

 

[JMartJr]

It has the appearance of one of these solar balloon toys, dark plastic that heats up in sunlight, in turn heating the air inside, and then away it flies if either intentionally or accidentally released.

Appearances match in terms of general shape, color, the highlight in the sun and the slight irregularities in the generally elongated shape. And it appears to be a sunny day, which would work for such a balloon flying. I don't think I'm ready to advocate for this as the solution, at least not yet.^_^ But the resemblance is certainly there, and so far I don't see anything ruling it out.

Footnote: These solar balloons come in several lengths, the one pictured is probably closest to the dimensions of the object shown in the vid, though the shape of the unidentified whatever may be distorted by camera or video compressing and the like. And a longer balloon might appear shorter when viewed at an angle -- and note that the UFO is larger at one end than the other, in the imagery.

I'm not interested in discussing "bugs" flying 3,000 feet above land while being filmed outside a plane's window (at 300+ MPH.) Freely theorize amongst yourselves.

Are you sure it is outside the plane? IF it were a bug, and I don't think it is, the speed at which it crosses the frame and how large it is in the frame would suggest it is not outside the plane and is very close to the camera. (IF it is a critter flying along its legal occasions, I'd suggest a large dark bird outside is more likely than a bug inside or outside.)

The process on MB tends to involve a bit of brainstorming, often test-fitting common explanations for UFO videos we've seen in the past. The number of times it has been a bug flying by is surprisingly high (surprised me, at least), so yeah, we're going to think about that and see if it fits THIS video. Freely theorizing, then testing and critiquing ideas put forward, is how we often eventually identify things.

Edited to add:
Guessing about solutions, THEN TESTING THOSE GUESSES, is what we do. Guessing about the data is a different thing, and muddies the water.

 

[Duke]

It has the appearance of one of these solar balloon toys, dark plastic that heats up in sunlight, in turn heating the air inside, and then away it flies if either intentionally or accidentally released.

Appearances match in terms of general shape, color, the highlight in the sun and the slight irregularities in the generally elongated shape. And it appears to be a sunny day, which would work for such a balloon flying. I don't think I'm ready to advocate for this as the solution, at least not yet.^_^ But the resemblance is certainly there, and so far I don't see anything ruling it out.

Footnote: These solar balloons come in several lengths, the one pictured is probably closest to the dimensions of the object shown in the vid, though the shape of the unidentified whatever may be distorted by camera or video compressing and the like. And a longer balloon might appear shorter when viewed at an angle -- and note that the UFO is larger at one end than the other, in the imagery.

I also thought of a solar balloon, but discounted the idea fairly quickly because, to the best of our knowledge, nothing like that was reported. We'd be talking about a balloon (of at least several feet in length) at a relatively low altitude floating roughly equidistant among three major airports (Laguardia, JFK, Newark) on what appears to be a sunny day. Under similar conditions and altitudes, multiple aircrew reported "jet pack guy" (which was probably a balloon) near LAX back 3-4 years ago. I'd expect a similar response from aircrew over NYC, and had that happened, I think we'd have heard/read about it.

 

[jarlrmai]

I also thought of a solar balloon, but discounted the idea fairly quickly because, to the best of our knowledge, nothing like that was reported.

Why would you expect it to be reported? There are thousands of items of airborne clutter (escaped helium balloons etc) up there all the time, especially near major cities.

 

[john.phil]

It has the appearance of one of these solar balloon toys, dark plastic that heats up in sunlight,

Just for future reference, solar balloons can be manufactured in a variety of shapes and colour combinations beyond the classic black sausage, regardless of performance:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9oC75rX2k9A

 

[Duke]

Why would you expect it to be reported? There are thousands of items of airborne clutter (escaped helium balloons etc) up there all the time, especially near major cities.

Flight safety, to alert ATC of a potential hazard to aerial navigation. Same as aircrews did with jetpack guy near LA as previously mentioned.

Is there a souce document detailing the "thousands of items of airborne clutter up there all the time, especially near major cities" you can reference? I'm curious to see how that breaks down, would be interesting to compare to UFO reports.

 

[JMartJr]

We'd be talking about a balloon (of at least several feet in length) at a relatively low altitude floating roughly equidistant among three major airports (Laguardia, JFK, Newark) on what appears to be a sunny day. Under similar conditions and altitudes, multiple aircrew reported "jet pack guy" (which was probably a balloon) near LAX back 3-4 years ago. I'd expect a similar response from aircrew over NYC, and had that happened, I think we'd have heard/read about it.

WOULD we have heard about some pilots reporting "Hey, we just saw some sort of balloon?" Do we know that they didn't? Would they bother (yet another balloon being less dramatic than a purported guy in a jet pack!)?

Whatever it was, if it was outside the plane and a real object, which I'd tentatively say appears to be the case, we do not know of any reports that might have been made, nor know that they weren't. That doesn't seem an objection SPECIFIC to balloons (though "I just saw a bird" would be less even likely to be reported, I'd think, so if a lack of chatter about it is established that would maybe weigh towards a bird than a balloon, though not definitively.)

 

[Duke]

WOULD we have heard about some pilots reporting "Hey, we just saw some sort of balloon?" Do we know that they didn't? Would they bother (yet another balloon being less dramatic than a purported guy in a jet pack!)?

Whatever it was, if it was outside the plane and a real object, which I'd tentatively say appears to be the case, we do not know of any reports that might have been made, nor know that they weren't. That doesn't seem an objection SPECIFIC to balloons (though "I just saw a bird" would be less even likely to be reported, I'd think, so if a lack of chatter about it is established that would maybe weigh towards a bird than a balloon, though not definitively.)

I believe I said in my post that no reports had been made to the best of our knowledge. And there's no way to know if the aircrew would even be able to identify a solar balloon as "some sort of balloon" to make that report. Whatever they'd have seen (if they saw anything) in this particular case would have had a closure rate at least roughly equal (+/-) to the a/c's speed. I think it's more likely they'd have reported a black cylindrical object that they caught just a brief glimpse of as it went passed them.

We're getting off on a tangent. We're discussing what we both believed to have been worthy of consideration, but both also appear not to believe is the answer.

 

[JMartJr]

We're discussing what we both believed to have been worthy of consideration, but both also appear not to believe is the answer.

I'll clarify then. I think a balloon, possibly a cylindrical solar balloon. is ONE likely solution. But other options remain viable

 

[deirdre]

(if they saw anything)

and dont forget they are descending for landingin a very busy air area of New York.if it was below the plane for most of their incoming they likely barely noticed it, if at all.

 

[John J.]

I'm not interested in discussing "bugs" flying 3,000 feet above land while being filmed outside a plane's window (at 300+ MPH.) Freely theorize amongst yourselves.

Content from External Source

(Posted by Zoltan, deleted 12:47 pm)

Why rule out possible explanations a priori?
Would it be acceptable to discuss the possibilities of a mystery UAV or "alien craft", even though these possibilities (especially the latter) must be much, much less likely? (From what little we know at this time).

Many insects can easily reach an altitude of 3000 ft (approx. 914 m), and much higher:

Scientists have collected locusts flying at heights of 14,764 feet (4,500 m); true bugs, stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies at altitudes over 16,404 feet (5,000 m); and flies and butterflies over 19,685 feet (6,000 m), according to Michael Dillon, a researcher with the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming.

Content from External Source

"How High Can Insects Fly?", Mindy Weisberger, Livescience website, July 19 2016, link here.

An insect, or any small piece of airborne debris, might be affected by the aircraft's slipstream so that its passing speed is reduced. Maybe this is the sort of stuff AARO calls airborne clutter:

WHAT ARE SOME COMMON OBJECTS/CAUSES FREQUENTLY REPORTED AS UAP?
Common objects/causes frequently reported as UAP include:

• - Airborne clutter
• - Commercial or scientific balloons
• - Commercial or military aircraft
• - Unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e., drones)
• - Space launches
• - Satellites
• - Celestial objects

Content from External Source

AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office) website, https://www.aaro.mil/

To be honest, I wish AARO had defined or at least given examples of "Airborne clutter", seeing as they list balloons, aircraft and UAVs separately.

@JMartJr's suggestion of a solar balloon must at least be a contender for the object; it flies and it looks similar.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A nice lady called Elizabeth Holmes offered to run some analysis using hi-tech methods she developed for a healthcare company called Thanatos or something nice like that.
I know she's successful because she lives in a 900-bed residence with uniformed staff 24 hours a day.
Hopefully one day she'll make analysers to help Gary Nolan, Jacques Vallee and Avi Loeb's investigations, but at the moment she's researching tunnel architecture.
Couldn't see anything new, but when I have time I'll click to enlarge the picture to make sure.

 

[Scaramanga]

I would not rule out a drone, especially after reading about this one at 9,000 feet....

https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/ba-flight-drone-collision-risk

 

[JMartJr]

We have several things it might be, can we rule any of them out? For the geometrical geniuses (Genii?) among us, is it possible to work out rough "it will be this size at this distance," given how big it appears in the video? I know we can't see the actual window edges, but the upward curve at the bottom of the window indicates where they are, so can we get distance by how fast it crosses the window, proportionate to speed assumed for the object (assuming it is outside the plane?)

And I am not going to be cross if the answer is "No, insufficient data." And will be only slightly cross if the answer is "Learn geometry and do it yourself, you lazy bum!"

We could maybe rule some things out, if for example we could say "To be the size of a solar balloon, and appear that size in the shot it has to be X feet away, but to be X feet away it would have to be moving at 400 mph to cross the view out the window as quickly as it does, so unless there are 400mph solar balloons it can't be one," and similar for other proposed solutions.

To me it looks about like what I would expect a a drifting object to look like and it looks big to be a drone, but of course "To me it looks like..." is not a particularly definitive metric and I recognize my "pet theory" may be influencing my perceptions.

 

[Ann K]

For the geometrical geniuses (Genii?) among us, is it possible to work out rough "it will be this size at this distance," given how big it appears in the video?

Since we don't know the size and don't know the distance, and have only an estimate of the plane's speed, it wouldn't be a very productive exercise.

(That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.)

 

[Scaramanga]

To me it looks about like what I would expect a a drifting object to look like and it looks big to be a drone, but of course "To me it looks like..." is not a particularly definitive metric and I recognize my "pet theory" may be influencing my perceptions.

Well its the classic UFO dilemma. To work out its distance you need to know its size.....but to work out its size you need to know its distance.

Somewhere on Youtube there's my breakdown of the infamous Utah UFO ( the one where it allegedly zips past the camera at 2000 mph ) and I point out that going by the width of the camera view in degrees and the size of the object ( in pixels ) when first seen it cannot have been more than 6 feet across. That was a refutal of claims of a classic 30 foot wide saucer. People forget that the Moon in the sky is about the width of a sphere 46 feet across a mile away. At 2 miles ( the claimed distance of that UFO when first seen ) a classic UFO should be easily visible at half the diameter of the moon.....and not just 2 pixels wide. This was part of the proof that the 'UFO' was either a much closer bird, or more likely an insect.

So people are not even good at judging size/distance when the parameters do exist. It does not surprise me that the Phoenix lights UFO was ' a mile wide' or whatever.

 

[deirdre]

We have several things it might be, can we rule any of them out? For the geometrical geniuses (Genii?) among us, is it possible to work out rough "it will be this size at this distance," given how big it appears in the video? I know we can't see the actual window edges, but the upward curve at the bottom of the window indicates where they are, so can we get distance by how fast it crosses the window, proportionate to speed assumed for the object (assuming it is outside the plane?)

And I am not going to be cross if the answer is "No, insufficient data." And will be only slightly cross if the answer is "Learn geometry and do it yourself, you lazy bum!"

We could maybe rule some things out, if for example we could say "To be the size of a solar balloon, and appear that size in the shot it has to be X feet away, but to be X feet away it would have to be moving at 400 mph to cross the view out the window as quickly as it does, so unless there are 400mph solar balloons it can't be one," and similar for other proposed solutions.

To me it looks about like what I would expect a a drifting object to look like and it looks big to be a drone, but of course "To me it looks like..." is not a particularly definitive metric and I recognize my "pet theory" may be influencing my perceptions.

lol i clicked an in-car camera Daytona 500 video (as they go about that speed) and the first scene i scrolled to has the same UFO

(a front window view wont work of course..i thought from a side window we could at least show what objects at 200mph going past a window look like. i guess it would be silly for drivers to have side camera shots.)

 

[Ann K]

lol i clicked an in-car camera Daytona 500 video (as they go about that speed) and the first scene i scrolled to has the same UFO

Daytona 500? That'd be the Goodyear blimp.

Edit to correct: they'll probably always be referred to colloquially as "blimps", but Goodyear has recently replaced their fleet with three-engine dirigibles, which are more slender in proportion to their length than the older blimps.

 

[Eburacum]

A small solar balloon might go unnoticed by aircrew so would not be reported to the ATC. But solar balloons work better when they are man-sized or larger; the lift provided by warm air is pretty small, so the ratio of volume to surface area needs to be pretty large.

Alternately, this could be a novelty balloon - perhaps a birthday letter or number; even a letter O or a number zero might look like a cylinder if seen side-ways on.

 

[Eburacum]

Something prosaic that looks weird because digital cameras produce odd looking artifacts.

This is an option we should explore more.

The movement of the object appears to be coincident with its apparent long axis; could it be elongated by the scanning process? It might be a sphere - maybe a spherical balloon, elongated by the movement of the plane into a round-ended cylinder.