What would it mean if we had good evidence?

[newyorklily]

I've been working on a case of a UFO found in a photograph over Manhattan. Roger Marsh wrote about it here (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/new-york-photographer-unsure-what-diamond-shaped-object-is)

What do you think would happen if we had photographic evidence that UFOs were real? Do you think it would change the skeptic's mind? Do you think people would begin to look at the phenomenon (and the world) differently?

[Doc]

Skepticism and cynicism often run hand in hand. Some people think everyone is always pushing a hoax. They can't tell or don't want to see the difference between reporting, discussing, investigating and promoting. They will always see it through the lens of their own cynicism.

[calikid]

I've been working on a case of a UFO found in a photograph over Manhattan. Roger Marsh wrote about it here (http://www.examiner.com/ufo-in-national/new-york-photographer-unsure-what-diamond-shaped-object-is)

What do you think would happen if we had photographic evidence that UFOs were real? Do you think it would change the skeptic's mind? Do you think people would begin to look at the phenomenon (and the world) differently?

I think we already have good photographic evidence.
But in this age of "Photoshop" that we live in, there will always be doubt.

I do recall some "experts" saying diamond shapes were an artifact associated with the camera mechanism some years ago.
Not sure if that hold up with digital cameras (as was used here) also.

I was not clear on the story, were any actual witnesses to the object? Or was the object solely discovered later on the photographs?

[Chris]

Skepticism and cynicism often run hand in hand. Some people think everyone is always pushing a hoax. They can't tell or don't want to see the difference between reporting, discussing, investigating and promoting. They will always see it through the lens of their own cynicism.
I think it runs even deeper then that, Doc.

Some people use the pseudo-intellectual position of cynical commentary as a posturing of "I'm better than you because I'm such an intellectual." They use it to try and silence the opinions of others while attempting to make it look like true discourse.

Mostly what they are trying to do is to call attention to themselves at the expense of others. If they tried to engage in an actual discussion they would be exposed for what they really are - frauds.

[noot]

We already have good evidence. It consists of the testimony aggregated over the course of the last 65 years and presented in the works of such researchers as Rich Dolan, John Mack, Don Keyhoe, Stan Friedman, Dave Jacobs and others. In a court of law such eye-witness testimony can earn a defendant the gas chamber. In the Ufer world it earns snickers and jeers.

[Doc]

I think it runs even deeper then that, Doc.

Some people use the pseudo-intellectual position of cynical commentary as a posturing of "I'm better than you because I'm such an intellectual." They use it to try and silence the opinions of others while attempting to make it look like true discourse.

Mostly what they are trying to do is to call attention to themselves at the expense of others. If they tried to engage in an actual discussion they would be exposed for what they really are - frauds.

Debunking with snark is a very effective position. If you play it right, you can never be wrong about anything. And You don't have to do any actual work. You just crap on the people who are trying.

[Lee]

Fascinating report, Lily! Thanks for sharing it.

I was actually shown those images by 11A when we met in December. Like most people, my initial impression was that we were looking at a sheet of newspaper. However image number three clearly rules this out, as the object appears to move behind the building! Meaning, if it is a genuine object it is quite large. The third image also rules out the possibility of a lens artifact, from what I understand.

I wonder if you had a chance to meet with the witness, visit the sighting location etc? If you did, and could provide the original unedited images to 11A and Marvin for them to asses the exif data that would be great. If the images still look genuine it might be worth trying to track down the photo location so that we can get an estimate of possible size.

[Doc]

It sounds so far as if there may be something to this one. Here's hoping.

[newyorklily]

Fascinating report, Lily! Thanks for sharing it.

I was actually shown those images by 11A when we met in December. Like most people, my initial impression was that we were looking at a sheet of newspaper. However image number three clearly rules this out, as the object appears to move behind the building! Meaning, if it is a genuine object it is quite large. The third image also rules out the possibility of a lens artifact, from what I understand.

I wonder if you had a chance to meet with the witness, visit the sighting location etc? If you did, and could provide the original unedited images to 11A and Marvin for them to asses the exif data that would be great. If the images still look genuine it might be worth trying to track down the photo location so that we can get an estimate of possible size.

I didn't meet with the witness. He spoke with someone who knows photography. I know Manhattan so I was easily able to pick out the location. The roof that the object is over is 1 World Financial Center. So, we already know that this object was over an area with quite a bit of security.

[newyorklily]

It sounds so far as if there may be something to this one. Here's hoping.

Yes. My State Director conducted the photo analysis for the case. I tracked down the locations, estimated sizes and ruled out mundane objects. We both came to the same conclusion that this is an unknown object. I'm told that the case is going to be in the February issue of the MUFON Journal.

[Garuda]

Nice job, Lil! :thumbup:

[ProblemChild]

If you look down the comments on the Examiner page there is a link to an Avalon thread discussing a similar object in Texas of the same year:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29616-Rectangle-UFO-Seen-Hovering-Over-Round-Rock-Texas-Sept-3-2011.

184

Has this came up in your research Lily?

[newyorklily]

If you look down the comments on the Examiner page there is a link to an Avalon thread discussing a similar object in Texas of the same year:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?29616-Rectangle-UFO-Seen-Hovering-Over-Round-Rock-Texas-Sept-3-2011.

184

Has this came up in your research Lily?

Yes. That was investigated separately but the object is being compared with the NYC sighting.

[newyorklily]

Nice job, Lil! :thumbup:

Thank you, Garuda. :)

[Lee]

Yes. My State Director conducted the photo analysis for the case. I tracked down the locations, estimated sizes and ruled out mundane objects. We both came to the same conclusion that this is an unknown object. I'm told that the case is going to be in the February issue of the MUFON Journal.
Do you know if the state director was able to get hold of the original images?

If so any chance he would be willing to share them, ideally in public but privately if necessary? (It's always worth getting a second opinion.)

I look forward to reading your report. :cool:

[newyorklily]

Do you know if the state director was able to get hold of the original images?

If so any chance he would be willing to share them, ideally in public but privately if necessary? (It's always worth getting a second opinion.)

I look forward to reading your report. :cool:

He did use the original pictures for his analysis but it is not in his power to share them. According to MUFON regulations, all media (photos, videos, audio) belongs to the person who took them (in this case, the witness) and the witness' identity remains confidential until she/he chooses otherwise.

[newyorklily]

I look forward to reading your report. :cool:

Thank you, Lee. I own my part of the report so I will post it here after the Journal comes out next month. But, my part is nothing compared to the extensive analysis my state director performed on the photos. If you are a MUFON member, you will be able to read about it in the Journal. For those who are not members, I will see if there is a way to purchase a single issue and let you know here.

[murmur]

Can we really state the object is over the building?

It could be much closer to the camera....there is no depth of field.

It does look like a newspaper.....but I'd expect a newspaper not to retain it's rigidity as this seems to.

[Lee]

Mur, did you look at image number 3? The object is partially obscured by the building.

Thanks, Lil! I would like to read the full report if at all possible.

[murmur]

Mur, did you look at image number 3? The object is partially obscured by the building.



Yes. I looked at all 3

That's a different building the object goes behind....and there are many buildings in NYC...lol

The object can still be much closer to the camera, and goes behind another building....and be a mile away form the building that due to an optical illusion, the object appears to be over.

I'm no photo expect....but I'd sure like to here from Dr 11a.

To me....a non photo expert.....the focus is sharper on the object than it is on the building it appears to be over.

But seriously....how can you say where the object is?

All you can say is it appears to go behind one building....that building, may or may not be close to the other

[newyorklily]

Can we really state the object is over the building?

It could be much closer to the camera....there is no depth of field.

The photo analysis shows that it is slightly behind the green roof building (1WFC), putting it further away from the camera.


It does look like a newspaper.....but I'd expect a newspaper not to retain it's rigidity as this seems to.

That is true. It would have to be weighed own around the edges to be that rigid. Also, the wind was coming out of the northeast but the object appears to be moving north, against the wind.

[newyorklily]

Mur, did you look at image number 3? The object is partially obscured by the building.

Thanks, Lil! I would like to read the full report if at all possible.

The red brick building is about a half mile north of the green roof building. This can also give you an idea of how large this object is.

BTW, I used to be a licensed New York City sightseeing guide so I know the city very well. :)

[newyorklily]

Yes. I looked at all 3

That's a different building the object goes behind....and there are many buildings in NYC...lol

The object can still be much closer to the camera, and goes behind another building....and be a mile away form the building that due to an optical illusion, the object appears to be over.

I'm no photo expect....but I'd sure like to here from Dr 11a.

To me....a non photo expert.....the focus is sharper on the object than it is on the building it appears to be over.

But seriously....how can you say where the object is?

All you can say is it appears to go behind one building....that building, may or may not be close to the other

Remember also, you are not looking at the original pictures in the article. The last paragraph in the article says
The three images I have supplied are lower resolution details of the actual four images that were taken as described above.
So, there is a difference in appearance.
The analysis was done on the original images and yields a lot of information about the object.

[murmur]

Winds can swirl in the city...I worked in NYC for 2.5 years.

Also....are the originals in black and white?

That seems odd.

The object....to me anyway appears much closer to the buiding it passes behind.

Keep us updated.

Thanks

[Dragonfire]

Mur,

Trying to see what you see. It doesn't look that close, but yet not quite over the green buiding, but behind the the tall building. Maybe over the street. Could be an optical illusion as for distance.


The object....to me anyway appears much closer to the buiding it passes behind.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

[Doc]

I'd like to see 11A's take on the originals. To me, it looks real and distant. At the same time it looks like a printed sheet or card. Impossible for me to tell exactly what I am seeing from the low-resolution copies.

[ProblemChild]

Lily, I'm asuming that the images we see in the report are heavily cropped to show the object? As otherwise as a composition of the skyline it's a bit naff. Is this the photographers location:

185

I'm sure the investigation will have covered this, but was the photographer inside the event room shooting through the glass or outside on the terrace. And did the investigation look into what was happening in the event room on the 17th September to eliminate any objects/exhibitions that could provide a match as in a reflection?

[newyorklily]

Lily, I'm asuming that the images we see in the report are heavily cropped to show the object? As otherwise as a composition of the skyline it's a bit naff.
Hi PC. Yes, the pictures in Roger Marsh's article are cropped and at a lower resolution.


Is this the photographers location:

185

I'm sure the investigation will have covered this, but was the photographer inside the event room shooting through the glass or outside on the terrace. And did the investigation look into what was happening in the event room on the 17th September to eliminate any objects/exhibitions that could provide a match as in a reflection?
The witness was outside on the terrace so, there is no chance the object could be a reflection.

[newyorklily]

This is my part of the report I submitted to MUFON on this case.

One of the advantages of investigating a case in New York City is that many of its locations are easily recognizable. This was very true for case #32025. The building the object is photographed above (and slightly behind) is 1 World Financial Center which can be identified by its cut pyramid roof. It is 577 feet high and spans about one city block. Because we cannot tell how far the object is behind the building, all measurements are approximations.
The witness reported that he took the pictures from the observation terrace of The New Museum. The New Museum is at 235 Bowery and the terrace is on the 7th floor. This location puts the witness approximately 1.5 to 2 miles northeast of the object. Visibility for that day was 10 miles. The photographs were shot toward the west and the object appears to be at an altitude of under 1,200 feet. This rules out conventional aircraft since an altitude that low would not be permitted except for possibly, helicopters. This object does not look like a helicopter.
The wind for that day was coming from the northeast at five miles per hour and less as the afternoon went on. This would rule out the object being kites, balloons or debris because, according to the photographs, it was moving against the wind in a northerly direction.
The size of the object would also rule these out, especially the newspaper that it somewhat resembles. The red brick building in the photo allows us to get an idea of the size of the object. One floor in an apartment building varies from eight to ten feet from floor to ceiling. If you align the object with the building you can see that, from tip to tip, the length spans approximately three floors and the width spans one and a half floors. This would make its size 24 to 30 feet in length and 12 to 15 feet in width. However, the red brick building is at least a half mile northeast of the object which means that the object is larger than it appears. This size would definitely rule out a newspaper.
Based on the photos and these calculations, this is neither a natural nor man-made object.
The Object is an “Unknown”.

My State Director, Sam Falvo, analyzed and submitted a 32 page report on the original photos which were supplied by the photographer. He found no indications of any alterations to the photos. There were no signs of ropes attached to the object nor any writing on the object. He estimated the object to be moving at 12 miles per hour.

There is more information to come on this and I will be posting it here in the near future.

[Doc]

Thank you for the update. It is very good to read that the pictures appear genuine and not altered.

[newyorklily]

Yes, Doc, it is. I am usually very suspicious when the witness doesn't see the object but it appears on the pictures. In this case though, it is understandable. He wasn't looking for anything in particular, he was just hitting the button. Point and shoot.

[newyorklily]

In the April 2012 issue of the MUFON Journal, an article was written declaring that the MUFON STAR Team identified the diamond object in my case as an aerial banner and that they had proof. I did my own research on it and found there were problems with their evidence. I just published it in my blog http://disclosurebeginsathome.com/2013/02/17/why-the-manhattan-diamond-shaped-ufo-is-not-an-aerial-banner/. Here is that blog post in full.


Why the Manhattan Diamond Shaped UFO Is Not An Aerial Banner

As you may have read in my previous post, A Diamond Shaped UFO Over Manhattan – September 17, 2011, I closed out case 32025 as an “Unknown”. Unbeknownst to me at the time, MUFON’s Texas STAR Team (Strike Team Area Research) was also conducting an investigation into my case. I found out about it when I read the article by Frank Coffman in the April, 2012 issue of the MUFON eJournal, titled “Part 3: Rectangular Object Identified: Three witnesses at different locations describe same object” (Coffman, 2012, pp.8-9).

The article states;

“Three sightings by different witnesses at different locations on different dates, all within a 90-day period prompted the investigator to contact Fletcher Gray. As the Star Team Manager, and Chief Investigator for Texas, Gray is active in many cases and would be aware of any sighting trends or patterns. On December 21, 2011, the details of the three gray rectangle sightings in Texas were given to the Chief Investigator who stated that the findings were very interesting and that there was still another report of a rectangle in New York City.

This examination proceeded unlike a typical MUFON case in that the only investigation conducted was for conclusive evidence that would identify the object as an advertising banner.” (ibid. p. 8).

Terry Hinson was the investigator assigned to this project. Even though the article says that the New York City UFO was identified, there are several problems with the evidence submitted.

One thing that kept bothering me was the altitude of the object. It just struck me as being too low for New York City especially in the area around Ground Zero. I began searching for rules and regulations governing the airspace over the Lower Hudson River. On line, I found a PDF from the Federal Aviation Administration titled “New York Class B Airspace Hudson River and East River Exclusion Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)”.https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/79/776/kneeboard.pdf.

The new rules were established in 2009 due to a mid air collision between a small plane and a sightseeing helicopter that killed nine people. It created another corridor in the Hudson River Exclusion Area and tiered the air traffic by altitude according to the purpose of the flight. Flights going straight up and down the river, with very little change in altitude or direction, are required to maintain an altitude of 1,000 to 1,299 feet (Transient Operations). Flights that frequently change direction and altitude (such as sightseeing helicopter tours) are required to fly at an altitude of up to 999 feet (Local Operations). Pilots must also announce themselves at mandatory reporting points along the route. The unknown object in the photo is about 40 feet above a building that is 577 feet tall, which puts it well below 1,000 feet. This would not be the right altitude for the object because a banner being towed, would go right up the Hudson and not make many changes in course or altitude. I now wanted to find out if these rules were enforced.

I learned that the office that handles this in my area, is the New York City Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). I told the person I was transferred to that I work for MUFON and that I was trying to determine if an object in a picture is a banner or something unknown. I told him that I had read the document “New York Airspace Hudson River and East River Exclusion Special Flight Rules Area” and that I felt that the altitude of this object was too low and should be in the Transient Operations area and not the Local Operations area. I asked him if the rules over the Hudson River were enforced. He said that the rules are enforced and a banner would be towed at 1,000 feet or above. However, before any of that could take place, there would have to be a waiver on file for banner towing.http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=F65EDE952783C34F8525734F00766 573

This is especially important because it would be flown through a “Special Flight Rules Area”. He then checked and told me that there are no waivers for banner towing over the Hudson River on file. I told him that the photograph was taken on September 17, 2011. He then repeated what he had told me; there are no waivers for banner towing over the Hudson, not for September 17 or any other day. Since a waiver on file is required this would mean that there have been no banners towed over the lower Hudson River, at least, since 2009 when the new rules were enacted.

Problems With the Photograph

There were also problems with the photograph supplied to Mr. Hinson by the aerial sign company, most notably of which was that the banner did not fly on the same day that the unidentified object was photographed.

Mr. Coffman writes underneath the photo of the banner; “Exhibit 7: Object above was sent to FI Terry Hinson by the aerial sign company for confirmation. Information in the sign was blocked.” (ibid p. 9).

Not all the information in the sign was blacked out. The word “NOW” in the photo struck me as odd. The “O” looked more like a circle than the letter and, even in the black and white picture, I could tell that it was a different color than the other two letters in the word. This suggested to me that it might be some sort of logo. Now, I needed to find it online.

One of the ways to find it is to do a search on Google using the “Images” tab. Since the photo in the journal is in black and white, I had to add different colors along with the words “circle logo”. I started with primary colors. If I found a picture that looked like it might be the one in the photo, I then went to the website, found the subject the logo is used for, and then added the words “aerial banner” to that subject.

After trying several colors with no luck, I then used “blue” with “circle logo” which led me to this page http://www.diabetesmine.com/2008/11/why-the-blue-circle.html

Then I added “diabetes” with “aerial banner” which gave me this page of search results https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=diabetes+aerial+banner&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1280&bih=685&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=piogUc7lMNPU0gGh1oD4Aw

As you can see, a banner with that large word “NOW”, like the one in the MUFON Journal article, is on the top row. When you click on that picture, it takes you to a flikr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/idf/6163011668/ . The identity of this photograph of an aerial banner as the one identified as the unidentified object over Manhattan, can be confirmed in two ways. 1) The word “NOW” is the same style as the picture in the article and both show that the middle letter is a different color than the rest of it. 2) If you look slightly above the upper left corner of the aerial banner in the flikr account, you will see a black smudge. There is the same smudge, in the same place, on the (mostly redacted) aerial banner photo in the journal article.

This aerial banner cannot be the same object as is in the UFO report submitted to MUFON. If you look at the caption under the photo in the flikr account it says;

“…raising diabetes awareness with an aerial banner flying high over New York on the first day of the United Nations High-Level Summit on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs). 19-20 September 2011”

This banner was flown on September 19, 2011. The Unknown Object was photographed over Manhattan on September 17, 2011, two days before the aerial banner. There cannot be any confusion about the dates because the observation deck at the New Museum is only open on weekends. September 17 was a Saturday, September 19 was a Monday.

The aerial banner is not the Unknown Object over Manhattan.

Summary

There is no waiver on file for flying any banner over the Hudson River, which is required by the FAA. The waiver is very important in this case because that area of the Hudson River has been designated a Special Flight Rules Area.

The photo of the aerial banner that was supplied to STAR Team Investigator, Terry Hinson, was traced to a flikr account held by the International Diabetes Federation. This was done through the diabetes logo that was left in the picture in the MUFON Journal.

The picture of the aerial banner was submitted as evidence to identify the Unknown Object as an aerial banner. This however, is not the case. The aerial banner was flown on Monday, September 19, 2011. The photo of the Unknown Object was taken on Saturday, September 17, 2011, two days before the banner was flown. The aerial banner and the Unknown Object are not the same object.

As I wrote in my previous post, analysis of the photos of the Unknown Object do not show any signs of tow ropes or lettering on the object.

This object is not an aerial banner. It remains “Unidentified”.

[Doc]

Great job, Lily! That was thorough and persuasive. I especially like how you found the image. :thumbup:

[majicbar]

Until the full resolution images are available it is hard to be conclusive about what was really seen, they clearly are not any banner that I've ever seen towed. Personally my impression was that it is a poorly focused sheet of newsprint sized poster for advertising and the blurr to the left side is a photo of a person. But I can't have confidence in that because it seems so out of focus, which implies the item is close to the camera. How such a poster would be up on that level is hard to say, but the image of the location in the other post seems to say there might be construction going on which would allow someone to bring something up to that level and it could blow off in the wind. Wind direction might not mean anything because big buildings cause vortices which cause chaotic flows, remembering the ballplayer who flew the light plane into a Manhattan building because of wind.

[newyorklily]

Majicbar, this is a picture I took from the same location as the photographer in the case.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/th_186.jpg (http://s525.beta.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/186.jpg.html)

The object was about 2.5 miles away from the photographer. The red brick building covering part of One World Financial Center, is .5 miles from the object.

Here is the link for the UFO Stalker page. The close-up pictures are on the bottom right. http://www.ufostalker.com/ufostalker/UFO+Sighting+in+New+York+New+York+United+States+on +September+17th+2011/32025

[newyorklily]

As you can see by the picture above, the only construction sites in the area, tower way above the 577 foot height of One World Financial Center. That would mean that, in order for the object to be something off a construction site, it would have had to have fallen at least 500 feet, recovered itself, and then be blown against the wind on its very narrow edge at 11 - 12 miles per hour for at least, one city block. That is pretty much aerodynamically impossible.

Plus, if anything that size (at least 15 x 30 feet), came off a construction site here, the area would have been shut down and it would have been on the evening news.

[newyorklily]

Great job, Lily! That was thorough and persuasive. I especially like how you found the image. :thumbup:

Thanks, Doc.

[Chris]

Lily,

You took the investigation to its proper conclusion, albeit still unknown. If the STAR team had been as careful and diligent as you were then we would have seen a different result, unless the published result was the desired outcome all along!

[majicbar]

As you can see by the picture above, the only construction sites in the area, tower way above the 577 foot height of One World Financial Center. That would mean that, in order for the object to be something off a construction site, it would have had to have fallen at least 500 feet, recovered itself, and then be blown against the wind on its very narrow edge at 11 - 12 miles per hour for at least, one city block. That is pretty much aerodynamically impossible.

Plus, if anything that size (at least 15 x 30 feet), came off a construction site here, the area would have been shut down and it would have been on the evening news.

As I see it from my own photographic experience, and my training in geography in photogrammetic interpretation, and remembering that I am reallying needing to see the original full definition images, preferably not in JPEG compression, my impression is that if one were not to take the image as a 3-D object, it could well be a very thin rectangle at some inclination to the line of sight, giving the impression of diamond shape, but rather be essentially just a 2-D object. If such a rectangle was blown off the same building it was taken from, it would be a relative small object, the size of a poster, or broadsheet. I think the problem is having a preconceived notion that it is large and thus far away. But given that we do not have a reasonable image to start from, I say I need to await that evidence before reaching conclusions. I'd be much more likely to put money on my guess though.

[epo333]

As I see it from my own photographic experience, and my training in geography in photogrammetic interpretation, and remembering that I am reallying needing to see the original full definition images, preferably not in JPEG compression, my impression is that if one were not to take the image as a 3-D object, it could well be a very thin rectangle at some inclination to the line of sight, giving the impression of diamond shape, but rather be essentially just a 2-D object. If such a rectangle was blown off the same building it was taken from, it would be a relative small object, the size of a poster, or broadsheet. I think the problem is having a preconceived notion that it is large and thus far away. But given that we do not have a reasonable image to start from, I say I need to await that evidence before reaching conclusions. I'd be much more likely to put money on my guess though.

I'm no expert in the photo category, but I took a look at the "pics at the lower right" and it seems to me if that item was blowing in the wind, or fell off a roof or construction sight, it could NOT maintain its' point to point orientation of its' diamond configuration for all three pics.

IOW, if you hold a pen or other straight edge point to point (roughly from the 8 o'clock point to the 2 o'clock point) that angle remains the same in all three pics. That said, there also appears to be graphics of some sort on it, notably what looks to me to be a red PAC-MAN character on the lower left of the object...!

So its' kinda "up in the air" for me...(sic pun I know)

[majicbar]

"I'm no expert in the photo category, but I took a look at the "pics at the lower right" and it seems to me if that item was blowing in the wind, or fell off a roof or construction sight, it could NOT maintain its' point to point orientation of its' diamond configuration for all three pics."

On one of the upper floors of what was then the IDS tower in Minneapolis a window glass broke free and sail aerodynamically for 5 blocks along the length of its long flat surface. If the object in the picture here were a piece of plywood, or insulation, it might well fly in its lengthwise direction for at least some distance, if this is close to the camera it would be all the more likely.

I need to see the full frame images, not compressed in JPEG, we are trying to settle an issue with only partial and compromised information.

[epo333]

I agree better pics would help a lot...wow a huge piece of glass sailing 5 blocks...!!! :yikes:

[Elevenaugust]

Thank you Lilly for your investigation, but you should have asked me for all the informations about this case at first! ;)

Indeed, I've done an analysis on this case in October 2012 that can be read here (http://www.ipaco.fr/EN_IFO_A_banne_121002.pdf).
To me, there's no doubt in my mind that it's the "Act on Diabetes" advertising banner, the enhancement and the animated flash I've created strongly suggest it, as well as my measurements.

Basically, and I understand your POV, you're saying that it cannot be the advertising banner because of two discrepancies:
1- The altitude that is not consistent with the aerial regulation rules over NY.
2- The date (17 or 19?)

About the altitude, I gave in my report some estimations of the possible size and distance of this object, but nothing neither about its altitude nor its speed.
You said that this object was moving 40ft above a 577 ft tall building (Is it the "One World Financial Center"? - See my annotations on my report, reproduced below -), but how do you arrive to such estimations? In the lack of any more informations (i-e banner size and/or plane speed), it could be in fact located everywhere in the line of sight and the more far away it is, the higher it is as well.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6914/nybanner.png

Anyway, I would be glad to do more calculations for you to confirm or infirm the aerial banner theory. In order to do this, I would need either an estimation of the "Act on Diabetes" banner size and/or an estimation of the speed of the trailing plane.
I can also, without these informations, give some estimations of the set size/distance/speed. If at one point these three values are all consistant, then it surely reinforce the banner theory.

About the date, seems like that there's some confusion about the beginning of the event. The Flickr's page said indeed that the "aerial banner (was) flying over New York on the first day of the United Nations High-Level Summit on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs), 19-20 September 2011."

However, it must be pointed out that in the NCD Alliance report (http://ncdalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/NCD%20Alliance%20Report%202009%20-%202011.pdf) there was already speakers at NCD Alliance Briefing for NGOs in New York on 17 September, 2011.

In the same document, we can also read: "Campaign messages in New York -LIVESTRONG arranged for a series of “Act on NCDs” message to be displayed in New York’s Times Square, placed large awareness advertisements in the New York Times and had mobile bicycle display boards circulating the city during the event.

IDF took to the air with four planes flying over New York, trailing banners reading "Act on Diabetes NOW!"

There's no mention of any date, but IMO it could be very well possible that the trailed banners were already on the air the 17 September. Was it for entertainment or was the 17 the "real" first day of the meeting?

Anyway, again, I'll be glad to help again in this case (or in any other case BTW). :)

[newyorklily]

Thank you for your response 11A.


Thank you Lilly for your investigation, but you should have asked me for all the informations about this case at first! ;)

Indeed, I've done an analysis on this case in October 2012 that can be read here (http://www.ipaco.fr/EN_IFO_A_banne_121002.pdf).
To me, there's no doubt in my mind that it's the "Act on Diabetes" advertising banner, the enhancement and the animated flash I've created strongly suggest it, as well as my measurements.

Basically, and I understand your POV, you're saying that it cannot be the advertising banner because of two discrepancies:
1- The altitude that is not consistent with the aerial regulation rules over NY.
2- The date (17 or 19?)

About the altitude, I gave in my report some estimations of the possible size and distance of this object, but nothing neither about its altitude nor its speed.

Actually you did. From your report:

Speed

The “UFO” being « frozen » in its displacement, captured at a 1/512e speed, we can logically think that it moves at a relatively slow speed.
A composition of the four photos shows us that it moves both in a regular way, with a small decrease in its speed between photos n°16 and n°17, and along an almost straight line:

Altitude

IV. Conclusion
Given the objective data collected through the examination of the photos and the subsequent Internet research, we can conclude that this object is an advertising banner trailed by a plane, at a low altitude, over Manhattan.
Can we agree then, that it was moving slowly at a low altitude?


You said that this object was moving 40ft above a 577 ft tall building (Is it the "One World Financial Center"? - See my annotations on my report, reproduced below -), but how do you arrive to such estimations? In the lack of any more informations (i-e banner size and/or plane speed), it could be in fact located everywhere in the line of sight and the more far away it is, the higher it is as well.

My estimation of the "40 feet" comes from my knowledge of One World Financial Center. The green top of the building (the roof), is 40 feet high. If you measure in the photo, the height of the green roof and then the distance between the roof and the object, they are about the same.
Some of the calculations for the distance comes from State Director and Photo Analyst, Sam Falvo's analysis of the fourth photo, where the object passes behind the building. In the MUFON Journal for March, 2012 (p 18), he is quoted:


The UO seems to be flying near the Tribeca Tower as evidenced by the dimming of the windows as the UO passes behind.
Have you analyzed that picture?

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6914/nybanner.png


Anyway, I would be glad to do more calculations for you to confirm or infirm the aerial banner theory. In order to do this, I would need either an estimation of the "Act on Diabetes" banner size and/or an estimation of the speed of the trailing plane.
I can also, without these informations, give some estimations of the set size/distance/speed. If at one point these three values are all consistant, then it surely reinforce the banner theory.

About the date, seems like that there's some confusion about the beginning of the event. The Flickr's page said indeed that the "aerial banner (was) flying over New York on the first day of the United Nations High-Level Summit on Noncommunicable Diseases (NCDs), 19-20 September 2011."

However, it must be pointed out that in the NCD Alliance report (http://ncdalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/NCD%20Alliance%20Report%202009%20-%202011.pdf) there was already speakers at NCD Alliance Briefing for NGOs in New York on 17 September, 2011.

In the same document, we can also read: "Campaign messages in New York -LIVESTRONG arranged for a series of “Act on NCDs” message to be displayed in New York’s Times Square, placed large awareness advertisements in the New York Times and had mobile bicycle display boards circulating the city during the event.
Summits (just like UFO conferences) are planned months, if not years in advance. Lance Armstrong and LIVESTRONG do not appear to have had anything to do with the aerial banners. His focus was on media attention which was most likely planned and executed way before the event itself. The only ones that were probably occurring during the days of the Summit, were the bicycle boards and the Times Square billboard.


took to the air with four planes flying over New York, trailing banners reading "Act on Diabetes NOW!"

There's no mention of any date, but IMO it could be very well possible that the trailed banners were already on the air the 17 September. Was it for entertainment or was the 17 the "real" first day of the meeting?

Anyway, again, I'll be glad to help again in this case (or in any other case BTW). :)

Thank you for that. I did not know there were four planes towing banners. However, this does not mean that any of them were towed over Manhattan. "New York" is made up of five boroughs. Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island are all New York. Each one of the four boroughs could have had a banner flown over it especially since they do not have as many air space restrictions as Manhattan does. This is because the outer boroughs are less densely populated and have smaller buildings.

Edit to add: "New York" could also mean all of New York State. That means that the banners could have been flown over Long Island, Westchester or anywhere else in the state.

[whoknows]

I often wonder if the evidence we want isn’t staring us right I the face. After all isn’t it said that the Arawak people didn’t even see Columbus’s ships and were unaware till they pulled their long boats ashore because they had no intellectual frame work to perceive this, for them, total oddity.

Can we say we are more psychologically prepared?

[CasperParks]

I often wonder if the evidence we want isn’t staring us right I the face. After all isn’t it said that the Arawak people didn’t even see Columbus’s ships and were unaware till they pulled their long boats ashore because they had no intellectual frame work to perceive this, for them, total oddity.

Can we say we are more psychologically prepared?

Those in denial and or not looking it may hold some truth. Unlike inhabitants of the Americas not seeing ships from Europe, many are aware and seeking a broader reality. For those in the latter category, it is unlikely they would miss seeing an extraterrestrial craft - unless it is camouflaged.

[Elevenaugust]

Actually you did. Can we agree then, that it was moving slowly at a low altitude?
Well, not really! In fact, and sorry for badly having explained myself, but saying "we can logically think that it moves at a relatively slow speed." was just a rough guess from my part based only on the shutter speed and the apparent displacement of the object between the shoots.
What would really be a good speed and altitude estimations should be based on scientific measurements and for this, an estimation of the "Act on Diabete Now" banner size and/or typical trailing plane is needed.

Moreover, "a low altitude" is a generic term with no real data to rely on. Since which altitude is considered to be "low"? 500 ft, 1000 ft, more? By saying low altitude in my report, I mean that it is probably not located thousand miles high, of course.
Anyway, it's probably my fault, I should be more specific in my conclusion. I can correct it though.


My estimation of the "40 feet" comes from my knowledge of One World Financial Center. The green top of the building (the roof), is 40 feet high. If you measure in the photo, the height of the green roof and then the distance between the roof and the object, they are about the same.
It will be the case if the object was located EXACTLY over this building. But what are the calculations/elements that allow you to say so? Again, the object could be located everywhere in the line of sight. The more far away it is, the bigger it is ("real" size) and the higher it is as well.


Some of the calculations for the distance comes from State Director and Photo Analyst, Sam Falvo's analysis of the fourth photo, where the object passes behind the building. In the MUFON Journal for March, 2012 (p 18), he is quoted:
The UO seems to be flying near the Tribeca Tower as evidenced by the dimming of the windows as the UO passes behind.
Yes, but, like I said above, (and even if it is visible through the building window) why should this object be located near this building? It could be anywhere on the line of sight!
There are two way to determine the real size (and not only a range of values) of an object in a photo:
1- by radiometric measurements, given that the object is a "black body" and comparatively of other known sized objects in the scene and...
2- by geometric measurements comparatively with known sized object in the scene and using the technical data taken off the EXIF of the related photos.



Lance Armstrong and LIVESTRONG do not appear to have had anything to do with the aerial banners.Hhmm, I'm not so sure about that. If you read the document again:


LIVESTRONG arranged for a series of “Act on NCDs” message to be displayed in New York’s Times Square, placed large awareness advertisements in the New York Times and had mobile bicycle display boards circulating the city during the event. IDF took to the air with four planes flying over New York, trailing banners reading "Act on Diabetes NOW!"

...They speak as if it's just the same event. Anyway, the possibility remains open for the aerials banners to have flown over NY City that day, headed either by Livestrong or IDF.


Thank you for that. I did not know there were four planes towing banners. However, this does not mean that any of them were towed over Manhattan. "New York" is made up of five boroughs. Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island are all New York. Each one of the four boroughs could have had a banner flown over it especially since they do not have as many air space restrictions as Manhattan does. This is because the outer boroughs are less densely populated and have smaller buildings.

Edit to add: "New York" could also mean all of New York State. That means that the banners could have been flown over Long Island, Westchester or anywhere else in the state.
The advertising campaign took place in New York City, why shouldn't the planes flew over New York City as well? I don't see the point to do an advertising campaign mainly focused on NY city while the rest focused elsewhere, while the summit occurs in NY City.

Have you look at my enhancement in my report and have you compare it to the banner?

http://imageshack.us/a/img809/6328/manhattanclose2enh1reve.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img820/8197/bannerwly.png

I have a hard time believing that this is not the same object!

[epo333]

I'm no expert in the photo category, but I took a look at the "pics at the lower right" and it seems to me if that item was blowing in the wind, or fell off a roof or construction sight, it could NOT maintain its' point to point orientation of its' diamond configuration for all three pics.

IOW, if you hold a pen or other straight edge point to point (roughly from the 8 o'clock point to the 2 o'clock point) that angle remains the same in all three pics. That said, there also appears to be graphics of some sort on it, notably what looks to me to be a red PAC-MAN character on the lower left of the object...!
So its' kinda "up in the air" for me...(sic pun I know)

Humm, when I made that post I was using my big old magnifying glass on the monitor. I had pretty good luck with that thing. So the PAC-MAN character may have been that TT1 logo...?

[Doc]

This is beginning to remind me of photo analysis threads from the past. Good times, those. I hope they return. :cool:

[newyorklily]

Here are the FAA Flight Restrictions for the Hudson River.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/32025sfra.jpg

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/79/776/kneeboard.pdf

[Chris]

This is an excellent discussion. A lot of information and a very open-minded debate. :D

[Dragonfire]

Must agree with Chris, I am not swayed either way at this point. Looking for more........

[whoknows]

Those in denial and or not looking it may hold some truth. Unlike inhabitants of the Americas not seeing ships from Europe, many are aware and seeking a broader reality. For those in the latter category, it is unlikely they would miss seeing an extraterrestrial craft - unless it is camouflaged.

Sorry, I stuck my nose in on a very specific conversation involving craft sighting. Where I was responding to the threads title "What would it mean if we had good evidence." I personally have been for a very long time trying to think beyond things as rudimentary as craft Nevertheless I do not dismiss the possibility. I just think there be much more going on than may depend on what we think of as our "five senses" not that there are not many here developing the, what some call extra senses, which I find redundant as I think they are only senses that we need to become aware of that we have and hone.

I like to use the word "meta," my definition of the word being "Those things which we seem to be sensing but have yet to even have a language to express what those things may be much less see them directly."

So sorry again if I have intruded. I tend to color outside the lines and I realize in some circles this is not appreciated.

Peace

[CasperParks]

Sorry, I stuck my nose in on a very specific conversation involving craft sighting. Where I was responding to the threads title "What would it mean if we had good evidence." I personally have been for a very long time trying to think beyond things as rudimentary as craft Nevertheless I do not dismiss the possibility. I just think there be much more going on than may depend on what we think of as our "five senses" not that there are not many here developing the, what some call extra senses, which I find redundant as I think they are only senses that we need to become aware of that we have and hone.

I like to use the word "meta," my definition of the word being "Those things which we seem to be sensing but have yet to even have a language to express what those things may be much less see them directly."

So sorry again if I have intruded. I tend to color outside the lines and I realize in some circles this is not appreciated.

Peace

No you did not intrude at all, not in the least. Your input was good, it added to the discussion.

Like not seeing ships on the water, it is very possible for the same to happen with space craft.

I agree with the five senses. Recorded a video a couple months back explaining in detail sixth sense. People have a misconception of what it is.

[newyorklily]

Well, not really! In fact, and sorry for badly having explained myself, but saying "we can logically think that it moves at a relatively slow speed." was just a rough guess from my part based only on the shutter speed and the apparent displacement of the object between the shoots.
What would really be a good speed and altitude estimations should be based on scientific measurements and for this, an estimation of the "Act on Diabete Now" banner size and/or typical trailing plane is needed.

Moreover, "a low altitude" is a generic term with no real data to rely on. Since which altitude is considered to be "low"? 500 ft, 1000 ft, more? By saying low altitude in my report, I mean that it is probably not located thousand miles high, of course.
Anyway, it's probably my fault, I should be more specific in my conclusion. I can correct it though.


It will be the case if the object was located EXACTLY over this building. But what are the calculations/elements that allow you to say so? Again, the object could be located everywhere in the line of sight. The more far away it is, the bigger it is ("real" size) and the higher it is as well.


Yes, but, like I said above, (and even if it is visible through the building window) why should this object be located near this building? It could be anywhere on the line of sight!
There are two way to determine the real size (and not only a range of values) of an object in a photo:
1- by radiometric measurements, given that the object is a "black body" and comparatively of other known sized objects in the scene and...
2- by geometric measurements comparatively with known sized object in the scene and using the technical data taken off the EXIF of the related photos.

Using Google Earth, you can get the distance between the known, stationery objects such as the New Museum (235 Bowery), Tribeca Tower (105 Duane Street) and the Hudson River. Using Photoshop, you can calculate the number of pixels per foot of one of the stationery objects (such as Tribeca Tower). From there, Sam Falvo calculated the vertical and horizontal angular dimensions. I don't understand the rest of it so I'm not even going to try to describe it. It involves a lot of math which I suck at.

The object was determined to be close to Tribeca Tower by measuring the amount of light in the photographs.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/32025closeup2.jpg

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/32025closeup.jpg

Every photographer knows how important back lighting is to a picture, which is why they use a light meter. There are programs (such as AstroArt) that give you the ability to measure the amount of background light in a photo. Sam Falvo measured the light in each of the pictures. The readings were all the same until the last photo where the object goes behind the building. In that photo, the graph of the light in the window area, was almost non-existent.

Remember, even if it was an object so large that it covered the window from the other side of the Hudson River (1.5 miles), there would still be a lot of light coming from the sky above that space between the building and the object. The light would become less, the closer the object is to the window The fact that there is almost no light registering indicates that the object was close.




Hhmm, I'm not so sure about that. If you read the document again:



...They speak as if it's just the same event. Anyway, the possibility remains open for the aerials banners to have flown over NY City that day, headed either by Livestrong or IDF.

There are two paragraphs on the NCD Alliance website about it. Here they are:


The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LIVESTRONG)
Leading the NCD Alliance’s social media working
group, LIVESTRONG coordinated an open sign on letter
to United Nations Heads of State requesting action on
NCDs which gained over 125,000 signatures. In the run
up to the Summit they also launched their Face Up To It
campaign, which asked Facebook users to request
action from their Heads of State, and collected photos
of over 10,000 supporters that were beamed from
a Time Square billboard during the Summit. Lance
Armstrong also raised grassroots awareness on behalf
of the NCD Alliance through tweets to his more than
three million Twitter followers.


Campaign messages in New York
LIVESTRONG arranged for a series of “Act on NCDs”
message to be displayed in New York’s Times Square,
placed large awareness advertisements in the New
York Times and had mobile bicycle display boards
circulating the city during the event. IDF took to the air
with four planes flying over New York, trailing banners
reading "Act on Diabetes NOW!"

Also, LIVESTRONG is about support for cancer victims, not about diabetes. IDF (International Diabetes Federation), is all about diabetes. They are different and separate non-profit organizations.


The advertising campaign took place in New York City, why shouldn't the planes flew over New York City as well? I don't see the point to do an advertising campaign mainly focused on NY city while the rest focused elsewhere, while the summit occurs in NY City.
The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are all New York City. It doesn't have to be in Manhattan to be in New York City.

The only reason the Summit was held in New York City is because that is where the United Nations is located. It is a UN Summit not a NYC Summit.


Have you look at my enhancement in my report and have you compare it to the banner?

http://imageshack.us/a/img809/6328/manhattanclose2enh1reve.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img820/8197/bannerwly.png

I have a hard time believing that this is not the same object!

I have a hard time believing it is.

In your enhancement, there is too much black on the top part of the round thing in the lower right corner for it to be the TT1 symbol.
There is something blue or green in the upper right corner. That is not on the banner.
I cannot make out any words or letters.
The object is still a diamond shape, not a rectangle.

If you look at the banner, you will see 7 ridges going down the length of it. These are ropes for attaching to a plane. You can also see the ropes coming out of the left edge if you look closely enough. There is also one going down the top and bottom edges of the banner. This makes 9 ropes to attach it to the plane.
These 9 ropes are attached to special hardware on the plane in order to keep the banner flying straight 250-350 feet (the length of the ropes) behind the plane.
It is not possible, with ropes attached in this manner, that the upper right corner could be extended the way it is on the object. The plane would be pulling all parts of the edge equally. The plane could not pull it by the upper right corner.

The banner is not the object.

[Elevenaugust]

Using Google Earth, you can get the distance between the known, stationery objects such as the New Museum (235 Bowery), Tribeca Tower (105 Duane Street) and the Hudson River.
Yes, that's what I've done too.


Using Photoshop, you can calculate the number of pixels per foot of one of the stationery objects (such as Tribeca Tower). From there, Sam Falvo calculated the vertical and horizontal angular dimensions. I don't understand the rest of it so I'm not even going to try to describe it. It involves a lot of math which I suck at.
No need to have "the number of pixels per foot of one of the stationery object" to do that. What you need is the technical data of the photo and the camera (Focal Length, sensor size...) and some maths stuff, but there's no way that this can gives you a definite answer about the size and the distance of the object, it will only gives you a range of size/distances possibilities:

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7840/meas1.png

The object has a length of 0.19°, from this you can determine a range of possibilities, for example, if the object is located 1320m away, then it have a length of 4.36m. If it is located 4000m away, then it have a size of 13.23m, and so on...

I'll not put the maths here, but everything is explained on our IPACO site here (http://www.ipaco.fr/page27.html#MEASURABLE)


The object was determined to be close to Tribeca Tower by measuring the amount of light in the photographs.

Every photographer knows how important back lighting is to a picture, which is why they use a light meter. There are programs (such as AstroArt) that give you the ability to measure the amount of background light in a photo. Sam Falvo measured the light in each of the pictures. The readings were all the same until the last photo where the object goes behind the building. In that photo, the graph of the light in the window area, was almost non-existent.

Remember, even if it was an object so large that it covered the window from the other side of the Hudson River (1.5 miles), there would still be a lot of light coming from the sky above that space between the building and the object. The light would become less, the closer the object is to the window The fact that there is almost no light registering indicates that the object was close.
That is absolutely wrong, (if these are the only data used by the analyst) as, again, since you do not know the original albedo of the object (or the intrinsic radiometric value of the object), the returned value of this "light meter" will be false. The results do not depends solely of the thickness of the atmosphere that is crossed by the light, but it depends ALSO of the original value of the albedo of the object. These are the basics of the radiometric analysis.

Then, for example, and for a given distance, if the object is per se 100% white, then the "light value" (or the value of the darkest grey pixel) will be increased. If the object is, let's say, per se 50% white, then this value, comparatively to a 100% white object, will be decreased. Of course, the modification of the distance between the window and the object will modify this value, but yet, it depends of the original albedo (supposed to be unknown) of the object.
So how can you gives a definite answer about the object size and distance?

An interesting thing that could be done however, is to consider at first that the object IS the aerial banner and do some radiometric measurements, considering that we do know its albedo. This way, it could be possible to give a good estimation of its size and distance. (and altitude BTW) and check whether it is consistent with the initial hypothesis or not.

But even with this, no radiometric analysis solely can be 100% conclusive as there are so many parameters that have to be taken into account (gamma, etc.).


Also, LIVESTRONG is about support for cancer victims, not about diabetes. IDF (International Diabetes Federation), is all about diabetes. They are different and separate non-profit organizations.C'mmon Lily, that do not avoid LIVESTRONG to have been the organiser of the advertising campaign!
So you're basically saying that LIVESTRONG have nothing to do with diabetes and that they never took part of the cause? Please, take a look at LIVESTRONG pages (http://www.livestrong.com/type-2-diabetes/)
Anyway, LIVESTRONG or IDF as organizers, that is not the point, the advertising campaign remains and planes DID flew these days over NY.


The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island are all New York City. It doesn't have to be in Manhattan to be in New York City. The only reason the Summit was held in New York City is because that is where the United Nations is located. It is a UN Summit not a NYC Summit.
So the planes scrupulously avoided Manhattan, but flew over all the other districts? I don't have flight plan of these days, and I don't think that you have it too, so we can't say for sure if they really flew over Manhattan or over other districts. If we come back to the photos and think about the possibilities that the planes flew over Manhattan or not, then it depends again of the distance/altitude of the object; it also depends of the possible aerial exclusion areas, of the possible flight exemptions (altitude and/or areas). Are you aware of all these data for that day? As for me, I'm not, so the possibilities remains open.


In your enhancement, there is too much black on the top part of the round thing in the lower right corner for it to be the TT1 symbol.
There is something blue or green in the upper right corner. That is not on the banner.
I cannot make out any words or letters.
At this distance, small shapes and colors are distorted, so it's really difficult to enhance a picture without make appears things that doesn't exist, and modify some other.
The interesting thing, without speaking of letters, words or colors, is that there are three set of... let's call them "artifacts", that appears in both pictures:

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6310/comp1e.png

More interesting is the respective length ratio of each of these "artifact" from both pictures:

http://imageshack.us/a/img716/8526/compo3.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img706/333/compo4u.png

I took as a reference the longest "artifact" (labelled as "2") and made the ratio for "1" and "3" in each of the photo. Both ratio are remarkably equal. Coincidence? I really don't believe so!


The object is still a diamond shape, not a rectangle.

If you look at the banner, you will see 7 ridges going down the length of it. These are ropes for attaching to a plane. You can also see the ropes coming out of the left edge if you look closely enough. There is also one going down the top and bottom edges of the banner. This makes 9 ropes to attach it to the plane.
These 9 ropes are attached to special hardware on the plane in order to keep the banner flying straight 250-350 feet (the length of the ropes) behind the plane.
It is not possible, with ropes attached in this manner, that the upper right corner could be extended the way it is on the object. The plane would be pulling all parts of the edge equally. The plane could not pull it by the upper right corner.That is a classic effect of perspective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28visual%29). The plane wasn't moving in a perpendicular plane from the camera POV (90°). But I would say rather according to either a 45° or a 135° angle (depends if it was moving toward the camera or away of it).

A rectangular banner will have an "elongated" (diamond or parallelogram) aspect due to perspective.

This:

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3773/vsdtutabstractperspecti.png

... is a rectangle distorted by the perspective.


The banner is not the object.
Sorry, Lily, but I'm afraid that this object was really a banner!

[newyorklily]

If you believe you are so correct, 11A, then would you like to file the complaint with our Federal government? If this is a banner, then the pilot has put many lives in danger by violating two -- possibly three -- Federal laws. That pilot should lose his license and do jail time for what he did.

[Elevenaugust]

If you believe you are so correct, 11A, then would you like to file the complaint with our Federal government? If this is a banner, then the pilot has put many lives in danger by violating two -- possibly three -- Federal laws. That pilot should lose his license and do jail time for what he did.
Well, I don't believe that "I'm so correct". I've done my best with all the available data and I would even be glad to be wrong, if someone bring me scientific evidences otherwise. That's one way to learn from mistakes, IMO, and to go further in our understanding of the UFO phenomenon.

I've done my part on the photo analysis, that's my favorite subject, and I do believe that I demonstrated that the banner theory is strongly consistent with the data.

As for the flight regulation, aviation rules, exclusion zones, etc. I guess that you're more informed than me on the matter, as you live over there. So, if the pilot really broke such rules, I really would like to see the reliable data that prove so, including for the flights during the 19 and 20 that month.

As for me, that's just a guess ok, but I think that any research on this avenue will be inconclusive since:
- We do not have the flight plan
- We do not know the exact distance of the object in that photo
- We do not know the air space restriction limitations, areas (in altitude and in projected space)
- We do not know if there's any exception for this event
etc.

What I'm just saying is that the object strongly suggest that this is the IDF banner.

The rest is just speculation IMO.

And please, don't judge me wrong, I'm not in any way your enemy!

[Dragonfire]

11A, you did a great great job. Is it possible with what NYLily is saying to go back and re-evaluate? Yes it could be a banner but again, maybe it is something a bit different. Not saying it is a UFO, just another object, but what......

Knowing air regulations, it's more than likely it is not being pulled by a conventional aircraft. Free floating?

[Dragonfire]

Could this "object" be connected to the building with the wind making it move? For some reason it just looks too stiff. None of the pics show any signs of wind ripple on the object. Maybe distance causes this but it just doesn't seem right. Hence the question of it being attached to the building.

[Chris]

A few non-scientific observations here:

- having spent a lot of time on beaches I have seen many airplane-towed banners. They constantly ripple from the airflow and the tow lines are always very visible...as is the tow plane. Nothing like that in these pics.

- on the other hand, just because the FAA regs state the altitude and air corridors these planes can fly in does not mean that planes might not "stray" (whether it's unintentional or not) out of their assigned altitudes and/or corridors.

Carry on..... :)

[gray50]

Elevenaugust - nice work. I have no doubt that it's a banner either. I can make out "ACT" and "NOW" on the enhanced photo.

[Doc]

A few non-scientific observations here:

- having spent a lot of time on beaches I have seen many airplane-towed banners. They constantly ripple from the airflow and the tow lines are always very visible...as is the tow plane. Nothing like that in these pics.

- on the other hand, just because the FAA regs state the altitude and air corridors these planes can fly in does not mean that planes might not "stray" (whether it's unintentional or not) out of their assigned altitudes and/or corridors.

Carry on..... :)

I think you are dead on about the way towed banners appear.

I wonder how much tolerance there is for straying from assigned altitudes and areas in the New York skies these days. Not very much, I suspect.

[newyorklily]

I think you are dead on about the way towed banners appear.

I wonder how much tolerance there is for straying from assigned altitudes and areas in the New York skies these days. Not very much, I suspect.

Yes, Doc, especially when you take into account the date and location this happened, September 17, 2011.

September 11, 2011 - Tenth Anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center (Ground Zero is across the street from I World Financial Center)
September 13, 2011 - U.S. Embassy in Kabul was attacked.
September 17, 2011 - First Day of Occupy Wall Street (Zucotti Park is 2 blocks south of 1 WFC).

Security in New York City was tight.

[newyorklily]

Another reason for enforcing the air space rules over the Hudson (and the most important) is safety. This is the accident that brought about the creation of the Special flight Rules Area over the Hudson River. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/continuous/09crash.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&


9 Dead After Copter and Plane Collide Over Hudson


By ROBERT D. McFADDEN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/robert_d_jr_mcfadden/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: August 8, 2009
A small private plane carrying three people and a New York tourist helicopter with six collided in midair and plunged into the Hudson River off Hoboken, N.J., opposite Manhattan’s West Side, just before noon on Saturday. All on board the two aircraft were killed, the authorities said.

The cause of the accident was under investigation. But what perhaps thousands of people out on a crystalline summer day saw from both sides of the Hudson was a stunning, low-altitude accident in which the plane rolled up and into the helicopter, striking with a crack like thunder as the helicopter’s blades and one of the plane’s wings flew off, and then both aircraft fell and vanished into the river.

There are 10 to 20 helicopters per hour, flying back and forth over the lower Hudson River (yes, I sat on a bench and counted them).

There is no radar in the two lower flight corridors, it is see and avoid for the pilots.

A plane towing a banner is long. First you have the length of the plane. Then you have 9 ropes at 250-350 feet each (in this case, invisible rope?). Then you have, at least, 30 feet of the banner. That is (at least) 280-380 feet of ropes and banner being pulled behind the length of the plane. (A New York City block is about 264 feet long). What happens if a helicopter pilot only sees the plane and comes up under those (invisible) ropes and banner? There will probably be a very bad accident.

[Elevenaugust]

I've a little additional work on this trying to see if the apparent move we see between the pictures could be compatible with the average speed of a plane towing a banner.

Fortunately, the camera that was used registered the hour of the shoot at hundredth of seconds. So for the four photos, here are the exact time for each one:

- n°5714: 16h19'22".11
- n°5715: 16h19'23".46
- n°5716: 16h19'24".93
- n°5717: 16h19'26".07

...visible under the EXIF data like this:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/5953/exifhour1.png

First step is to do a composite of the four photos using the closest building as a reference and report on it these hours (in red) plus the distance in pixels between each object (in blue).

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/8617/manhattanclose5.png

Next, it's possible to check the regularity of the move of the object:

- Interval 1: between shoot n°5714 and 5715: 68 pixels in 1".35
- Interval 2: between shoot n°5715 and 5716: 76 pixels in 1".47
- Interval 3: between shoot n°5716 and 5717: 53 pixels in 1".14

Now let's compute the average speed per pixel for each interval:
- Interval 1: 0.19" per pixel
- Interval 2: 0.19" per pixel
- Interval 3: 0.21" per pixel

I guess that we can already say that the speed WAS constant.

Second step is to directly measure on the photo one of these intervals in degrees: (let's take the first one, for example)

http://imageshack.us/a/img706/8894/meas2.png

68 pixels makes 0.3491°

Third step is to compute all the possible banner size/distance possibilities according to the already known distances, and according to some random more far away:

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9130/dist1.png

Here's a GE view:

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9612/map2b.png

The object cannot be closer than 0.82 miles, since it's passing behind the 101 Duane Street building, so let's take as distances references these values:

1- 0.82 miles: 101 Duane Street building
2- 1.45 miles: One World Financial Center
3- 2.03 miles: Over the Hudson River (approx. in the middle)
4- 2.93 miles: Over Elis Island
5- 5.00 miles: Over Bayonne 1
6- 7.00 miles: Over Bayonne 2

Fourth step is to compute the apparent movement of the object according to the distances estimations above:

1- If the object was located 0.82 miles away, then it's move was of 0.004996 miles - 23 ft - 7.23 m
2- If the object was located 1.45 miles away, then it's move was of 0.006093 miles - 32 ft - 9.80 m
3- If the object was located 2.03 miles away, then it's move was of 0.01219 miles - 64 ft - 19.61 m
4- If the object was located 2.93 miles away, then it's move was of 0.01785 miles - 94 ft - 28.72 m
5- If the object was located 5.00 miles away, then it's move was of 0.03046 miles - 160 ft - 49.02 m
6- If the object was located 7.00 miles away, then it's move was of 0.04265 miles - 225 ft - 68.63 m

To be continued!...

[Elevenaugust]

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/6356/meas3.png

Fifth step is to compute the average speed for each possibility, knowing that there was 1.35" during interval 1:

1- 0.004996 miles during 1.35" makes an average speed of 13.32 mph
2- 0.006093 miles during 1.35" makes an average speed of 16.24 mph
3- 0.01219 miles during 1.35" makes an average speed of 32.50 mph
4- 0.01785 miles during 1.35" makes an average speed of 47.59 mph
5- 0.03046 miles during 1.35" makes an average speed of 81.22 mph
6- 0.04265 miles during 1.35" makes an average speed of 113.73 mph

Okay, so we have our estimated speed according to estimated distances.

Now, we may wondering what is the average speed of a plane towing a banner?

I tried to find this info on-line and there are various data:
- This document (http://www.huaa.com/aerialadvertising/about.htm) is saying that "normal towing speed is 60 to 70 MPH"
- This other document (http://pjakma.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/banner-towing/) do not exactly gives the same data: "Typically, depending on the type of aircraft, it will cruise at speeds between 45 and 75 mph"
- Here (http://www.chasingclouds.net/forums/index.php?topic=3.0), you can read that the average speed is comprised between 60 and 65 mph.

Now, let's take the larger range of speed, 45 to 75 mph, from these three sources.

That means that the distance should be, for a typical plane towing a banner at these average speeds, comprised between the number 4 and 5 of our estimations above, i-e between 2.93 and 5.00 miles away from the camera.

2.93 miles away is over Elis Island and 5.00 miles is over Bayonne.

Last step would be to calculate using trigonometry the altitude range for these distance.

Tomorrow! :)

[newyorklily]

Here are some pictures that might help:

This is the view from Tribeca Tower at 105 Duane Street (not 101). From the realtor's website at http://www.related.com/apartment-rentals/new-york-city/tribeca-battery-park-city/tribeca-tower

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/TribecaTower.jpg

This is an old photo but it shows where most of the surrounding buildings and shoreline are. As you can see, there is no sign of the new World Trade Tower yet but, on the center left, you can see some of Ground Zero.

[newyorklily]

This is a picture I took in New York Harbor from the Staten Island Ferry:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/206.jpg


And this:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/214.jpg

This one I took from New Museum's observation deck. I tried to keep the focal length at a number that would show how the buildings look to the unaided eye.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/186.jpg

[Elevenaugust]

Thanks for the photos, Lily!

Since you're living in NY city, do you think that you could determine where the horizon line is in the photo below? This will help me to give a good estimation of the altitude of the object.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2903/mg5715lineofsight.jpg

I personally think that it could be between the green and the purple line, but I could be wrong.

Any thoughts?

[newyorklily]

Actually, I've never seen the horizon in that area. This is what lies behind One World Financial Center:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/152.jpg

Those are the buildings of Jersey City, New Jersey.

This is a picture of the horizon in the opposite direction. I took it on the same observation deck the photographer of the object stood on but, I am looking east toward Brooklyn and the Atlantic Ocean instead of west toward 1 WFC and New Jersey.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/177.jpg

[newyorklily]

When you look toward the horizon, you are looking toward the point of infinity. As you can see in my second photo, the closer you get to that point, the higher it is. It gives the illusion of an upward slope. That being said, I would say that the horizon in the photo you are asking me about, is closer to the red line. It is far behind the buildings.

[newyorklily]

I just found something else. There was a Temporary Flight Restriction put in place for most of the month of September, 2011.

From http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=3676d391-04be-4934-95f3-60f64fde790b


Tue, Sep 13, 2011
FAA Sets 18-Day TFR For UN General Assembly (http://www.aero-news.net/GetMoreFromANN.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=3676d391-04be-4934-95f3-60f64fde790b)
Temporary Flight Restriction In Place Through September 30th
The FAA has set the first of what it says will be several TFRs in New York City beginning September 13th and running through September 30th. The TFRs coincide with the 66th General Session of the United Nations in New York City. The TFR will be in effect from 0800-1700 daily beginning Tuesday.
The TFR will be centered on the LA GUARDIA VOR/DME (LGA) 258 degree radial at 5 nautical miles (Latitude: 40º44'59"N, Longitude: 73º58'08"W). It will encompass a radius of 2 nautical miles and include airspace from the surface up to but not including 7000 feet MSL.

All aircraft operations within the 2 NMR area listed above are prohibited except for: approved law enforcement, air ambulance and military aircraft directly supporting the United States Secret Service (USSS). In addition, regularly scheduled commercial passenger and all-cargo carriers operating under one of the following TSA-approved standard security programs/procedures: aircraft operator standard security program (AOSSP), full all-cargo aircraft operator standard security program (FACAOSSP), model security program (MSP), twelve five standard security program (TFSSP) all cargo, or all-cargo international security procedure (ACISP) or those aircraft that have been granted a Department of State diplomatic clearance and are arriving into and/or departing from 14 CFR part 139 airports.

Here is the map for the covered area:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/UN-Gen-Assembly-TFR-0911a092011.gif

Wherever the IDF banner was flown, it had to be at 7,000 feet or above. That cannot be the object in the September 17, 2011 picture.

BTW, this is what happened when aircraft violate the TFR during the last UN General Assembly:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/fighter_jets_readied_after_nj_plane_f9hRJvaXVPxIGp IY5kfcZN


Fighter jets scrambled after NJ plane violates UN airspace restrictions (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/fighter_jets_readied_after_nj_plane_f9hRJvaXVPxIGp IY5kfcZN)
· From ASSOCIATED PRESS
· Last Updated: 5:09 PM, September 25, 2012
· Posted: 12:41 PM, September 25, 2012
Officials have scrambled fighter jets over central New Jersey after an aircraft violated airspace restrictions in place because of the UN General Assembly meeting.
FAA spokesman Jim Peters says the temporary restrictions in the New York City metropolitan area were imposed Tuesday as part of the General Assembly's annual gathering.
Peters says the violation occurred west of New York City over Somerset County, New Jersey.
There's no word yet if the aircraft has landed

And they were over New Jersey.

[newyorklily]

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/32025closeup2.jpg

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/32025closeup.jpg


Every photographer knows how important back lighting is to a picture, which is why they use a light meter. There are programs (such as AstroArt) that give you the ability to measure the amount of background light in a photo. Sam Falvo measured the light in each of the pictures. The readings were all the same until the last photo where the object goes behind the building. In that photo, the graph of the light in the window area, was almost non-existent.

Remember, even if it was an object so large that it covered the window from the other side of the Hudson River (1.5 miles), there would still be a lot of light coming from the sky above that space between the building and the object. The light would become less, the closer the object is to the window The fact that there is almost no light registering indicates that the object was close.
.

A banner, flying at 7,000 feet or above, could not have done this.

[Elevenaugust]

That being said, I would say that the horizon in the photo you are asking me about, is closer to the red line. It is far behind the buildings.
Ok, thanks!

So, here are the estimated angular elevation for the banner comparatively to each line:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1924/angularelevation.png

If the horizon line is located at the red line position on my sketch above, the altitude plane was of:

- 0.09596 miles or 506 ft above sea level if 2.93 miles away
- 0.1638 miles or 864 ft above sea level if 5.00 miles away



That cannot be the object in the September 17, 2011 picture.
I think I've done my part of work in this case and that I conclusively showed that all the scientific data strongly suggest that that was the IDF banner.

I'll not continue here anymore, unless more evidence comes up, which I haven't seen so far.

[newyorklily]

11A - Please read the new information I have in my last 2 posts. A banner would have to have been flown at 7,000 feet or above sea level.

[Dragonfire]

Ok, thanks!

So, here are the estimated angular elevation for the banner comparatively to each line:

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1924/angularelevation.png

If the horizon line is located at the red line position on my sketch above, the altitude plane was of:

- 0.09596 miles or 506 ft above sea level if 2.93 miles away
- 0.1638 miles or 864 ft above sea level if 5.00 miles away



I think I've done my part of work in this case and that I conclusively showed that all the scientific data strongly suggest that that was the IDF banner.

I'll not continue here anymore, unless more evidence comes up, which I haven't seen so far.

I have a problem with height here. Most of the buldings in NYC are more than 50 stories tall or approx. 507 ft. at 10 ft per story. Even at 800 ft. or 80 stories. That would mean the "banner" and whatever is towing it would have to dodge all those taller buildings. If the "banner" is only 507-800 ft. above sea level, it would have to be towed out over the East river or Hudson river. At that height all of the suspension bridges would be in the way.

Something is missing here.............

[Dragonfire]

OK, thinking about the distance. 5 miles would put it over Brooklyn to the East or New Jersey to the west. So, thinking of banner size. Banners are 10ft to 45ft (3m - 10.5m) tall, 40ft to 125ft (12m -37.5m) long.

So how big is this banner?

Another fact I found is that helicopters also tow banners. Althought the banner size is reduced somewhat. The banner hangs below the copter.

Banners are towed at approximately 1000 to 1500 feet above sea level. In NYC the wind must be a factor. It is a variable wind tunnel so to speak...

[Chris]

11A - do you see any signs at all of tow lines either to the sides or above the object?

[Elevenaugust]

OK, thinking about the distance. 5 miles would put it over Brooklyn to the East or New Jersey to the west. So, thinking of banner size. Banners are 10ft to 45ft (3m - 10.5m) tall, 40ft to 125ft (12m -37.5m) long.

So how big is this banner?
64 ft long for a 2.93 miles distance and 110 ft long for a 5.00 miles distance, without correction of the perspective effect (add to these values approx. 10/15%)


11A - do you see any signs at all of tow lines either to the sides or above the object?
No I don't.

Give me some infos about the diameter of those wires and I'll tell you if the camera can resolves it, depends of the distance of the object to it and the camera resolving power.

[newyorklily]

I can't find anything that tells the gauge or the thickness of the ropes but, here is a good picture of one. http://www.airsign.com/option-billboards.php

[Dragonfire]

Made of non-stretching materials, this type of towline is normally 350 ft. (107 m) long.

Did find this from the FAA


RULES TO FOLLOW FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS. Operations around congested areas or around open-air assembly of persons shall be executed in accordance with a planned course of action with emphasis on selection and availability of emergency landing areas. Due to the area around which such operations are usually conducted (congested areas/open-air assembly of persons), the pilot will exercise special precautions to ensure compliance with section 91.119(a)(b)(c). Operations around congested areas/open-air assemblies must be no lower than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle. The operator should take into account the lowest point on the trailing banner when determining a helicopter’s correct flight altitude. For safety purposes, the altitude should be sufficient for the aircraft and trailing banner to comply with section 91.119(b)(c). Some banners may extend more than 250 feet behind the aircraft. Operations may be within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet and operations elsewhere shall be in compliance with section 91.119(c). Section 91.119(d) is not applicable to helicopters under the terms of this authorization except near open air assemblies.
NOTE: Due to Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) requirements, distances laterally may be limited to no closer then 3 statue miles.


NOTE: Due to Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) requirements, distances laterally may be limited to no closer then 3 statue miles.

Also:

When banner tow operations are being conducted along ocean front beach areas, lakes or rivers, the following limitations are to be included in the Certificate of Waiver.
• Comply with 14 CFR section 91.119, Minimum Safe Altitudes: General.
• Before conducting towing operations within Class B, C, or D airspace, each pilot will establish and maintain two-way radio communications with Air Traffic Control (ATC) for coordination purposes and additional instructions or clearances as required by ATC.

Was a flight plan sheduled that day? Should have records on file at one, if now all airports in the area. That is one busy place. I have seen the planes in NYC and the banners. They are all flying out over open water. It is against federal regulations to fly over the populated areas with the banner. There are some acceptions.

Information can be found here: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/media/faa-fs.pdf

[Dragonfire]

Found this: The towing cable is 6mm in diameter and has a standard length of 50 meters. ... with E-85 Release for higher safety than banner tow assemblies used by many ...

from: http://www.wingsandwheels.com/page31.htm

Some very good information on banner towing systems. Some prices too :yikes:

[newyorklily]

Made of non-stretching materials, this type of towline is normally 350 ft. (107 m) long.

Did find this from the FAA





Also:


Was a flight plan sheduled that day? Should have records on file at one, if now all airports in the area. That is one busy place. I have seen the planes in NYC and the banners. They are all flying out over open water. It is against federal regulations to fly over the populated areas with the banner. There are some acceptions.

Information can be found here: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/media/faa-fs.pdf

Cannot find anything on the size of the guide wires other than length.

As I posted here earlier http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?281-What-would-it-mean-if-we-had-good-evidence&p=19718&viewfull=1#post19718 there was a Temporary Flight Restriction in effect from September 13 - 30 2011 for the UN General Assembly. Air traffic below 7,000 feet was prohibited.

[Dragonfire]

Saw that, but still, did anyone request a flight path to tow a banner that day? It may be easier for you to find out as you are there :biggrin2:

Helicopters as well

[newyorklily]

Saw that, but still, did anyone request a flight path to tow a banner that day? It may be easier for you to find out as you are there :biggrin2:

Helicopters as well

I was told by Robert Smithen of the NYC Flight Safety District Office, that there were no banner waivers on file for over the Hudson River. A waiver would have to be on file or they wouldn't be able to leave the airfield with the banner. I called again last week and was told by someone else that it would be difficult to get that information now.

If the object on September 17 was a banner, at that low altitude, fighter jets would have been sent to intercept. It's not like it would not have been seen. In one of the pictures that 11A has, you can easily see a helicopter very high up. This would most likely have been a police helicopter.

[Elevenaugust]

Found this: The towing cable is 6mm in diameter ...

Ok, thanks, DF.

So the Circle of Confusion (CoC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion) (which is the largest blur spot that will still be perceived by the human eye as a point) with the related hyperfocal distance for a Canon Rebel T2i can be precisely defined using the technical data of the photo:
- Focal Length: 59
- f/stop: 14.3
- subject distance: between 15470 and 26400 ft

This involves some maths, but this DOF calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) can gives you in an easy way those values. As the camera focused on infinite, they stay the same for both distance estimations, i-e:
- Coc: 0.019 mm
- Hyperfocal distance: 42.4 ft

Meaning that 42.4 ft away, the far limit resolving power is of 0.019 mm. A quick compute of these values for the estimated distances gives:
- App. 7 mm for the banner to be 15470 ft (2.93 miles) away
- App. 12 mm for the banner to be 26400 ft (5 miles) away

In other words, if the ropes aren't visible in the photos, that means that they can't be resolved by the resolving power of the camera if they are under 7 mm in diameter for the banner to be 2.93 miles away and if they are under 12 mm in diameter for the banner to be 5 miles away.

8 mm in diameter put the far resolving distance up to 17.852 ft (3.67 miles). So if the ropes aren't visible, it's because the banner is more far away than this distance. If we take account my distance/speed/size estimations above, then the banner could be located between 3.67 and 5 miles away.

One more data that is still compatible with the aerial banner.

[Elevenaugust]

8 mm in diameter put the far resolving distance up to 17.852 ft (3.67 miles). So if the ropes aren't visible, it's because the banner is more far away than this distance. If we take account my distance/speed/size estimations above, then the banner could be located between 3.67 and 5 miles away.
Oupps I've done a mistake here!

I meant 6 mm not 8 mm. So 6 mm in diameter put the far resolving distance up to 13.389 ft (2.94 miles). So for the ropes to have been visible, the banner would have to be located exactly between 2.93 and 2.94 miles away. I doesn't change the final result and this reinforce the banner explanation, i-e:

- A banner located between 2.94 and 5 miles away from the camera
- At an altitude comprised between 506 and 864 ft above sea level (if the horizon line is well defined, otherwise it will be greater)
- With a size comprised between 64 and 110 ft.
- With rope's diameter of 6 mm

All the above (except the altitude that is still debatable) is strongly consistent with the banner explanation.

[newyorklily]

Ok, thanks, DF.

So the Circle of Confusion (CoC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion) (which is the largest blur spot that will still be perceived by the human eye as a point) with the related hyperfocal distance for a Canon Rebel T2i can be precisely defined using the technical data of the photo:
- Focal Length: 59
- f/stop: 14.3
- subject distance: between 15470 and 26400 ft

This involves some maths, but this DOF calculator (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html) can gives you in an easy way those values. As the camera focused on infinite, they stay the same for both distance estimations, i-e:
- Coc: 0.019 mm
- Hyperfocal distance: 42.4 ft

Meaning that 42.4 ft away, the far limit resolving power is of 0.019 mm. A quick compute of these values for the estimated distances gives:
- App. 7 mm for the banner to be 15470 ft (2.93 miles) away
- App. 12 mm for the banner to be 26400 ft (5 miles) away

In other words, if the ropes aren't visible in the photos, that means that they can't be resolved by the resolving power of the camera if they are under 7 mm in diameter for the banner to be 2.93 miles away and if they are under 12 mm in diameter for the banner to be 5 miles away.

8 mm in diameter put the far resolving distance up to 17.852 ft (3.67 miles). So if the ropes aren't visible, it's because the banner is more far away than this distance. If we take account my distance/speed/size estimations above, then the banner could be located between 3.67 and 5 miles away.

One more data that is still compatible with the aerial banner.

Or, it is because there are no ropes.

[newyorklily]

Oupps I've done a mistake here!

I meant 6 mm not 8 mm. So 6 mm in diameter put the far resolving distance up to 13.389 ft (2.94 miles). So for the ropes to have been visible, the banner would have to be located exactly between 2.93 and 2.94 miles away. I doesn't change the final result and this reinforce the banner explanation, i-e:

- A banner located between 2.94 and 5 miles away from the camera
- At an altitude comprised between 506 and 864 ft above sea level (if the horizon line is well defined, otherwise it will be greater)
- With a size comprised between 64 and 110 ft.
- With rope's diameter of 6 mm

All the above (except the altitude that is still debatable) is strongly consistent with the banner explanation.

Except, as, I had posted before, if a plane was flying below 7,000 feet, it would have been intercepted by fighter jets due to the Temporary Flight Restriction in effect from September 13 -30. 2011.

You are also forgetting that the object covered and blocked out almost all of the light of the window in Tribeca Tower. That window is on the 42nd floor which is 441 feet above the street level.

[Elevenaugust]

Except, as, I had posted before, if a plane was flying below 7,000 feet, it would have been intercepted by fighter jets due to the Temporary Flight Restriction in effect from September 13 -30. 2011.

You are also forgetting that the object covered and blocked out almost all of the light of the window in Tribeca Tower. That window is on the 42nd floor which is 441 feet above the street level.
You're coming again with this, in spite of what I already explained pages ago... Do you really understand what I've said about this?

It looks like the aerial IDF banner, have the size of an aerial banner, move at a speed of a trailing plane, have a distance that is compatible with the ropes not to be visible...

..... but, according to you, it's not an aerial banner...

So what do you think it is? A UFO that mimic an aerial banner?

There's a moment where common sense have to be considered as a priority.

Ok, I already said it, but this time I'm really done with this case.

[newyorklily]

You're coming again with this, in spite of what I already explained pages ago... Do you really understand what I've said about this?

It looks like the aerial IDF banner, have the size of an aerial banner, move at a speed of a trailing plane, have a distance that is compatible with the ropes not to be visible...

..... but, according to you, it's not an aerial banner...

So what do you think it is? A UFO that mimic an aerial banner?

There's a moment where common sense have to be considered as a priority.

Ok, I already said it, but this time I'm really done with this case.

11A, you are picking and choosing the evidence that supports what you believe the object is (an aerial banner) and throwing out the evidence that doesn't. That is not according to the Scientific Method. That is Biased Research.

The fact remains:

There was a Temporary Flight Restriction in effect. An airplane towing a banner would have to be at an altitude of 7,000 feet or above. If it went below that, it would have been intercepted by fighter jets.

The object in the picture of September 17 blocked out almost all of the light to the 42nd floor window in Tribeca Tower. That is evident in the last two photos.

These things have to be taken into consideration.

[Elevenaugust]

11A, you are picking and choosing the evidence that supports what you believe the object is (an aerial banner) and throwing out the evidence that doesn't. That is not according to the Scientific Method. That is Biased Research.

The fact remains:

There was a Temporary Flight Restriction in effect. An airplane towing a banner would have to be at an altitude of 7,000 feet or above. If it went below that, it would have been intercepted by fighter jets.

The object in the picture of September 17 blocked out almost all of the light to the 42nd floor window in Tribeca Tower. That is evident in the last two photos.

These things have to be taken into consideration.
So let me get it straight.

You asked me first to come here discussing the matter, right?

I've done scientific calculations that demonstrates that all the data are strongly consistent with the explanation of a banner towed by a plane. You haven't demonstrated using scientific method for each point that I'm wrong, right? So you implicitly recognize that all my calculations are ok, right?

Now, let's recapitulate what are the points that supports the aerial banner actually
- Distance of the object
- Size of the object
- Aspect of the object
- Ropes not visible

All of these scientifically demonstrated.

What are the points that shows that it might not be the aerial banner:
- Altitude (demonstrated by myself BTW, so still biased research? ...)

And speaking of biased research, did you asked to any official that headed the event (IDF, LIVESTRONG, whoever...) if a plane really flew the 17 and if they were aware of the regulation rules and/or if they have had an exemption or if there was acceptions that day? I'm sure you haven't, but you DID searched for whatever supported your theory, (i-e general aerial regulation rules) which is not really clear BTW:


It looks like the aerial IDF banner, have the size of an aerial banner, move at a speed of a trailing plane, have a distance that is compatible with the ropes not to be visible...

..... but, according to you, it's not an aerial banner...

So what do you think it is? A UFO that mimic an aerial banner?

...Still waiting for your reply about this very point.


The object in the picture of September 17 blocked out almost all of the light to the 42nd floor window in Tribeca Tower.
And so? What's the point? That it shows that it is close to the Tribeca Tower? I guess that you either haven't read what I said about this or that you haven't understand it. Let me repeat it for you (post #56):




The object was determined to be close to Tribeca Tower by measuring the amount of light in the photographs.

Every photographer knows how important back lighting is to a picture, which is why they use a light meter. There are programs (such as AstroArt) that give you the ability to measure the amount of background light in a photo. Sam Falvo measured the light in each of the pictures. The readings were all the same until the last photo where the object goes behind the building. In that photo, the graph of the light in the window area, was almost non-existent.

Remember, even if it was an object so large that it covered the window from the other side of the Hudson River (1.5 miles), there would still be a lot of light coming from the sky above that space between the building and the object. The light would become less, the closer the object is to the window The fact that there is almost no light registering indicates that the object was close.
That is absolutely wrong, (if these are the only data used by the analyst) as, again, since you do not know the original albedo of the object (or the intrinsic radiometric value of the object), the returned value of this "light meter" will be false. The results do not depends solely of the thickness of the atmosphere that is crossed by the light, but it depends ALSO of the original value of the albedo of the object. These are the basics of the radiometric analysis.

Then, for example, and for a given distance, if the object is per se 100% white, then the "light value" (or the value of the darkest grey pixel) will be increased. If the object is, let's say, per se 50% white, then this value, comparatively to a 100% white object, will be decreased. Of course, the modification of the distance between the window and the object will modify this value, but yet, it depends of the original albedo (supposed to be unknown) of the object.
So how can you gives a definite answer about the object size and distance?


That is evident in the last two photos.

No, this is only visible in the last photo...

[ProblemChild]

Has any consideration been given to the object marked by my crude arrow below?

950

It seems to move between shots and in IIA's pdf Photo n°5717 it looks very like a helicopter. This would tally with the witness reporting hearing a helicopter at the time he took the photos.

I wonder about the flight restrictions if this is the case but also the proximity of the helo (if that's what it is) to a plane towing a banner?

Mmm my attachment is not showing it very well. It is just to the right of the red line to "401 Broadway" in the previous pictures in this thread.

[newyorklily]

Has any consideration been given to the object marked by my crude arrow below?

950

It seems to move between shots and in IIA's pdf Photo n°5717 it looks very like a helicopter. This would tally with the witness reporting hearing a helicopter at the time he took the photos.

I wonder about the flight restrictions if this is the case but also the proximity of the helo (if that's what it is) to a plane towing a banner?

Mmm my attachment is not showing it very well. It is just to the right of the red line to "401 Broadway" in the previous pictures in this thread.

Yes, there was a helicopter very high up, too high to be reached by 350 feet of rope. Police in NYC use helicopters very often and that is most likely what it was. It was the first day of Occupy Wall Street and the helicopter would give them a bird's eye view. The police were exempt from the Temporary Flight Restrictions. Below is a more detailed list.

From http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=3676d391-04be-4934-95f3-60f64fde790b


Tue, Sep 13, 2011
FAA Sets 18-Day TFR For UN General Assembly (http://www.aero-news.net/GetMoreFromANN.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=3676d391-04be-4934-95f3-60f64fde790b)
Temporary Flight Restriction In Place Through September 30th
The FAA has set the first of what it says will be several TFRs in New York City beginning September 13th and running through September 30th. The TFRs coincide with the 66th General Session of the United Nations in New York City. The TFR will be in effect from 0800-1700 daily beginning Tuesday.
The TFR will be centered on the LA GUARDIA VOR/DME (LGA) 258 degree radial at 5 nautical miles (Latitude: 40º44'59"N, Longitude: 73º58'08"W). It will encompass a radius of 2 nautical miles and include airspace from the surface up to but not including 7000 feet MSL.

All aircraft operations within the 2 NMR area listed above are prohibited except for: approved law enforcement, air ambulance and military aircraft directly supporting the United States Secret Service (USSS). In addition, regularly scheduled commercial passenger and all-cargo carriers operating under one of the following TSA-approved standard security programs/procedures: aircraft operator standard security program (AOSSP), full all-cargo aircraft operator standard security program (FACAOSSP), model security program (MSP), twelve five standard security program (TFSSP) all cargo, or all-cargo international security procedure (ACISP) or those aircraft that have been granted a Department of State diplomatic clearance and are arriving into and/or departing from 14 CFR part 139 airports.

Here is the map for the covered area:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/UN-Gen-Assembly-TFR-0911a092011.gif

[Garuda]

First of all, thank you, 11A, for all the hard work you've put into this. It is much appreciated.

I must say, you do make a very compelling case, and I am indeed convinced that if it was an aerial banner, that's what it would look like.

At the same time, I can understand Lily's misgivings: for it to be a banner, there has to be a plane that tows it, and that's a bit problematic, on several accounts:
- You need a waiver, and none was issued
- there were flight restrictions in place, where a) the plane would have had to fly at an altitude of at least 7 000 ft, and it's clear that is not the case, and b) would not have been allowed to fly over certain densely populated areas (if I understood that correctly).

This is New York, not too far from Ground Zero, and close to the UN, which was in session at the time, so it's hard to imagine that a pilot could get away with an unauthorized flight like that.

Hence my question: are solutions possible that would be compatible with both your views?
I'm just thinking out loud here: a poster or a billboard that got loose; a canvas with that imprint that was hanging from a building but that got loose, ...

[ProblemChild]

Thanks Lilly, It would be interesting to see if that was a Police helicopter how it compares in size and movement relative to the object. Given that we can reasonably estimate the size of a helicopter. It is interesting that banners towed by helicopters are towed at a lower altitude (relative to the towing vehicle) and greater length when compared to fixed wing towed banners, to clear the tail rotor of the chopper.

http://www.advertisingaerial.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/helicopterbanner3.gif

Although in this case it seems to be a very long way from the chopper to the object but it could be perspective.

I'm also wondering about the effectiveness of an ariel banner campaign with a no fly zone in place. They must have considered this?

[newyorklily]

First of all, thank you, 11A, for all the hard work you've put into this. It is much appreciated.

I must say, you do make a very compelling case, and I am indeed convinced that if it was an aerial banner, that's what it would look like.

At the same time, I can understand Lily's misgivings: for it to be a banner, there has to be a plane that tows it, and that's a bit problematic, on several accounts:
- You need a waiver, and none was issued
- there were flight restrictions in place, where a) the plane would have had to fly at an altitude of at least 7 000 ft, and it's clear that is not the case, and b) would not have been allowed to fly over certain densely populated areas (if I understood that correctly).

This is New York, not too far from Ground Zero, and close to the UN, which was in session at the time, so it's hard to imagine that a pilot could get away with an unauthorized flight like that.

Hence my question: are solutions possible that would be compatible with both your views?
I'm just thinking out loud here: a poster or a billboard that got loose; a canvas with that imprint that was hanging from a building but that got loose, ...

The wind was coming from the Northeast at around 4 mph. Looking at the photos, the object appears to be moving in a northerly direction which means that the wind would not be a head-wind but it would hit the object at a 45 degree angle. I don't think a 4 mph wind could lift a banner into the air and, if it did, the northeasterly wind would push it in the opposite direction of its apparent movement.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNYC/2011/9/17/DailyHistory.html?req_city=New+York&req_state=NY&req_statename=New+York

[Dragonfire]

I don't think a 4 mph wind could lift a banner into the air .....

Actually a 4 mph wind could lift the banner. The material would be light. I know from experiance that a light breeze can lift a heavy load depending on the area of resistance.

These banners can be up to 50,000 square feet. That is a lot of resistance for the wind to catch.

I am now wondering if the date is incorrect and the photo was taken either earlier or later than what is stated. Cameras can be wrongly set. imo.

[Elevenaugust]

First of all, thank you, 11A, for all the hard work you've put into this. It is much appreciated.

I must say, you do make a very compelling case, and I am indeed convinced that if it was an aerial banner, that's what it would look like.

- there were flight restrictions in place, where the plane would have had to fly at an altitude of at least 7 000 ft...

Thank you, but I was also wondering if Lily really checked if the area where the object is supposed to fly over was inside this 7.000 ft above sea level restricted area...

- Centered on the La Guardia airport VOR-DME (LGA) (tip: this VOR-DME is located on Rikers Island)
- 2 and 5 nautical miles radius from this center.

[newyorklily]

Actually a 4 mph wind could lift the banner. The material would be light. I know from experiance that a light breeze can lift a heavy load depending on the area of resistance.

These banners can be up to 50,000 square feet. That is a lot of resistance for the wind to catch.

I am now wondering if the date is incorrect and the photo was taken either earlier or later than what is stated. Cameras can be wrongly set. imo.

Thank you, DF. I used the wrong word though. Garuda was asking more about loose materials rather than a banner itself. I didn't think 4 mph could lift loose canvas or billboard material up to over 800 feet. 11A is now saying that the banner was flown 5 miles away in Bayonne, New Jersey. http://www.ufostalker.com/ufostalker/UFO+Sighting+in+New+York+New+York+United+States+on +September+17th+2011/32025 There are no 800 foot structures in Bayonne so, the wind would have to pick up the canvas, lift it up to that height and keep it out straight and moving north. I think you asked a similar question about, maybe, something was tied to a structure and moving in the wind?

The date on the EXIF data (September 17, 2011) is the same date the photographer said he was at the New Museum. He filed his report with MUFON on September 23 http://www.ufostalker.com/ufostalker/UFO+Sighting+in+New+York+New+York+United+States+on +September+17th+2011/32025

The observation deck is only open on weekends. September 17 was a Saturday.

[Elevenaugust]

11A is now saying that the banner was flown 5 miles away in Bayonne, New Jersey.
Not exactly, I said between 2.94 and 5 miles away from the camera (Ellis Island to Bayonne).

[newyorklily]

Thank you, but I was also wondering if Lily really checked if the area where the object is supposed to fly over was inside this 7.000 ft above sea level restricted area...

- Centered on the La Guardia airport VOR-DME (LGA) (tip: this VOR-DME is located on Rikers Island)
- 2 and 5 nautical miles radius from this center.

The "VOR-DME" is a frequency http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLGA

Riker's Island is an island adjacent to the runways of LaGuadia Airport (LGA). It is also the site of New York City's largest prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikers_Island

2 nautical miles = 2.30156 regular miles
5 nautical miles = 5.7539 regular miles


From http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=3676d391-04be-4934-95f3-60f64fde790b


Tue, Sep 13, 2011
FAA Sets 18-Day TFR For UN General Assembly (http://www.aero-news.net/GetMoreFromANN.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=3676d391-04be-4934-95f3-60f64fde790b)
Temporary Flight Restriction In Place Through September 30th
The FAA has set the first of what it says will be several TFRs in New York City beginning September 13th and running through September 30th. The TFRs coincide with the 66th General Session of the United Nations in New York City. The TFR will be in effect from 0800-1700 daily beginning Tuesday.
The TFR will be centered on the LA GUARDIA VOR/DME (LGA) 258 degree radial at 5 nautical miles (Latitude: 40º44'59"N, Longitude: 73º58'08"W). It will encompass a radius of 2 nautical miles and include airspace from the surface up to but not including 7000 feet MSL.

All aircraft operations within the 2 NMR area listed above are prohibited except for: approved law enforcement, air ambulance and military aircraft directly supporting the United States Secret Service (USSS). In addition, regularly scheduled commercial passenger and all-cargo carriers operating under one of the following TSA-approved standard security programs/procedures: aircraft operator standard security program (AOSSP), full all-cargo aircraft operator standard security program (FACAOSSP), model security program (MSP), twelve five standard security program (TFSSP) all cargo, or all-cargo international security procedure (ACISP) or those aircraft that have been granted a Department of State diplomatic clearance and are arriving into and/or departing from 14 CFR part 139 airports.

Here is the map for the covered area:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/UN-Gen-Assembly-TFR-0911a092011.gif

It sure looks like Bayonne, NJ is in that circle. I just left a message for a good friend of mine, who is a retired air traffic controller, to call me back. I'll ask him to explain this to me when he does.

[newyorklily]

Not exactly, I said between 2.94 and 5 miles away from the camera (Ellis Island to Bayonne).

Are you saying that you don't have a definite distance? Are you making an approximation with a 2.06 mile difference? Does that mean you don't have a definite altitude or size either?

[Elevenaugust]

Are you saying that you don't have a definite distance? Are you making an approximation with a 2.06 mile difference? Does that mean you don't have a definite altitude or size either?
Please read again what I've done on the past pages.

I only gave a size/distance estimation range.

[Elevenaugust]

The "VOR-DME" is a frequency http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLGA

VOR-DME is an aeronautical, navaid, distance measuring equipment - DME, VHF omni-directional radio range/ VOR

Here's this equipment on Riker's Island:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/4774/vordme.png



2 nautical miles = 2.30156 regular miles
5 nautical miles = 5.7539 regular miles
I know how to convert these miles .... thank you...



Here is the map for the covered area:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/UN-Gen-Assembly-TFR-0911a092011.gif

It sure looks like Bayonne, NJ is in that circle.
No it is not inside this red circle...

So I ask again, did you really check if the area where the object is supposed to fly over was inside this 7.000 ft above sea level restricted area?

Edit: After closer inspection, seems like the red circle is not exactly centered neither Riker Island nor the LA GUARDIAN airport, but rather more to the SW. (According to the coordinates given by the caption of the map above : 40º44'59"N, 73º58'08"W)
Anyway, my point remains in both cases as the 2 nautical miles radius kept the restricted area outside the possible range for the object position and 5 miles radius away from this center put it .... over Elis island...

[newyorklily]

VOR-DME is an aeronautical, navaid, distance measuring equipment - DME, VHF omni-directional radio range/ VOR

Here's this equipment on Riker's Island:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/4774/vordme.png


I know how to convert these miles .... thank you...


No it is not inside this red circle...

So I ask again, did you really check if the area where the object is supposed to fly over was inside this 7.000 ft above sea level restricted area?

Riker's Island is in the red circle. Bayonne is near where that green dot is toward the lower left of the map.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/UN-Gen-Assembly-TFR-0911a092011.gif

The white machinery you see next to Lady Liberty is part of Bayonne. the bridge you see is the Bayonne Bridge.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/025.jpg

Bayonne is right next to Staten Island on the west side.

[Elevenaugust]

Riker's Island is in the red circle
No, it's close to LGA (LA Guardian Airport) up to the NE (there's the little white plane symbol inside the blue square and the "LGA" name in black)

[newyorklily]

No, it's close to LGA (LA Guardian Airport) up to the NE (there's the little white plane symbol inside the blue square and the "LGA" name in black)

The "A" in the picture is Riker's Island:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RikersLGA.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikers_Island

Rikers Island is New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)'s main jail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jail) complex,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikers_Island#cite_note-1) as well as the name of the 413.17-acre (1.672 km2) island on which it sits, in the East River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_River) between Queens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens) and the mainland Bronx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronx), adjacent to the runways of LaGuardia Airport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaGuardia_Airport). The island itself is part of the borough of the Bronx, though it is included as part of Queens Community Board 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Community_Board_1) and has a Queens ZIP code.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikers_Island#cite_note-2) The jail complex, operated by the New York City Department of Correction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Department_of_Correction), has a budget of $860 million a year, a staff of 9,000 officers and 1,500 civilians to control an inmate population of 14,000. The official permanent population of the island, as reported by the United States Census Bureau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau), was 11,355 as of 2009.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikers_Island#cite_note-3)
The island is thought to be named after Abraham Rycken (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Rycken&action=edit&redlink=1),[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rikers_Island#cite_note-4) a Dutch settler who moved to Long Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Island) in 1638 and whose descendants owned Rikers Island until 1884, when it was sold to the city for $180,000. It has been used as a jail ever since

I'm a fourth generation New Yorker. I never had to visit Riker's but I had to pass it going home to the Bronx.

This is an aerial view of Riker's and LaGuardia
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sam601601/5067511245/

[Elevenaugust]

I'm a fourth generation New Yorker. I never had to visit Riker's but I had to pass it going home to the Bronx.

Thank you for all these beautiful and instructive photos.

I guess that, thanks to you, I'll know NY better as if I was other there! :)

[newyorklily]

No, it's close to LGA (LA Guardian Airport) up to the NE (there's the little white plane symbol inside the blue square and the "LGA" name in black)

But the red circle is the center of the radius. Where did you get your information from that says the VOR comes from Riker's?

[Elevenaugust]

But the red circle is the center of the radius. Where did you get your information from that says the VOR comes from Riker's?
It comes from Wikimapia (http://wikimapia.org/21807308/La-Guardia-VOR-DME)

But the info is possibly wrong, as the coordinates (40º44'59"N, 73º58'08"W) that were given with the TFR map lead to another place, (centered in the red circle) like I said above. See my EDIT post #106:


Edit: After closer inspection, seems like the red circle is not exactly centered neither Riker Island nor the LA GUARDIAN airport, but rather more to the SW. (According to the coordinates given by the caption of the map above : 40º44'59"N, 73º58'08"W)
Anyway, my point remains in both cases as the 2 nautical miles radius kept the restricted area outside the possible range for the object position and 5 miles radius away from this center put it .... over Elis island...

[Dragonfire]

I am of the opinion that it is a banner. However, I do not know how it is being displayed. In the photo it is just too flat so to speak. Large yes, suspended from (?) I just don't know. It could be closer than it appears or possibly out over New Jersey, which would make it quite large. That No-Fly Zone is a real stigma.

[epo333]

It is also possible that experienced air traffic control monitors would be aware that a "Banner Plane" strayed into restricted air space and not sounded the alarm...? I'm pretty sure they don't willy nilly launch fighters for known infractions.

Right? Well JMO anyway.:p

[newyorklily]

It is also possible that experienced air traffic control monitors would be aware that a "Banner Plane" strayed into restricted air space and not sounded the alarm...? I'm pretty sure they don't willy nilly launch fighters for known infractions.

Right? Well JMO anyway.:p

The fighter jets will intercept any plane that goes into restricted airspace.

BTW, this is what happened when aircraft violate the TFR during the last UN General Assembly (2012):

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/fighter_jets_readied_after_nj_plane_f9hRJvaXVPxIGp IY5kfcZN


Fighter jets scrambled after NJ plane violates UN airspace restrictions (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/fighter_jets_readied_after_nj_plane_f9hRJvaXVPxIGp IY5kfcZN)
· From ASSOCIATED PRESS
· Last Updated: 5:09 PM, September 25, 2012
· Posted: 12:41 PM, September 25, 2012
Officials have scrambled fighter jets over central New Jersey after an aircraft violated airspace restrictions in place because of the UN General Assembly meeting.
FAA spokesman Jim Peters says the temporary restrictions in the New York City metropolitan area were imposed Tuesday as part of the General Assembly's annual gathering.
Peters says the violation occurred west of New York City over Somerset County, New Jersey.
There's no word yet if the aircraft has landed

And they were over Central New Jersey.

[ProblemChild]

Am I seeing this clearly now? The red circle is the area of temp flight restrictions centered on the UN head quarters at 40º44'59"N, 73º58'08"W. The museum where the pics were taken is about 2.5 miles away south and the object could be a few miles soutwestish from the museum. This would put it possibly out over the Hudson out of the TFR and where a banner plane or helicopter could fly as low as 500 feet according to their info.

The dates issue is still there but IMO it could be a banner without infringing the flight restrictions.

[newyorklily]

Am I seeing this clearly now? The red circle is the area of temp flight restrictions centered on the UN head quarters at 40º44'59"N, 73º58'08"W. The museum where the pics were taken is about 2.5 miles away south and the object could be a few miles soutwestish from the museum. This would put it possibly out over the Hudson out of the TFR and where a banner plane or helicopter could fly as low as 500 feet according to their info.

The dates issue is still there but IMO it could be a banner without infringing the flight restrictions.

The banner would still be flying illegally because any aircraft at any time, would have to be flying at 1,000 feet or above. 11A gives an estimation of the altitude at 864 feet (at a distance of 5 miles).




If the horizon line is located at the red line position on my sketch above, the altitude plane was of:

- 0.09596 miles or 506 ft above sea level if 2.93 miles away
- 0.1638 miles or 864 ft above sea level if 5.00 miles away

[newyorklily]

Some information for the helicopter seen in the photo.

If it was a NYPD helicopter: http://helihub.com/2012/06/27/nypd-aw119-fleet-achieves-20000-hour-milestone/NYPD
Specifications (AW119Ke)

Data from AgustaWestland website
General characteristics
· Crew: 1 pilot
· Capacity: 6-7 passengers
· Length: 13.01 m (42 ft 8 in)
· Rotor diameter: 10.83 m (35 ft 6 in)
· Height: 3.77 m (12 ft 4 in)
· Disc area: 92.1 m² (991 ft²)
· Empty weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer%27s_Weight_Empty): 1,430 kg (3,152 lb)
· Loaded weight: kg (lb)
· Max. takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_takeoff_weight): 2,720 kg (6283 lb)
· Powerplant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_engine): 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6)B-37A turboshaft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboshaft), 747 kW (1,002 hp)
Performance
· Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Regulatory_V-speeds): 267 km/h (166 mph, 152 knots)
· Ferry range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aircraft)): 991 km (618 miles, 535 nm)
· Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aircraft)): 6,096 m (15,000 ft)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW119_Koala


If it was a Sightseeing Helicopter: (I know of at least one company that uses this type. http://www.helicopternewyorkcity.com/ga/helicopter-tours?gclid=CIvYtcax2LUCFYtU4AodfQMAPg )

Sightseeing

Specifications (Bell 407)

file:///C:/Users/Lillian/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bell_407-rotorhead.jpg)

Data from Bell 407
General characteristics
· Crew: 1 pilot
· Capacity: Typical seating configuration for seven comprising pilot and passengers, with five passengers in main cabin. Max hook capacity 1200 kg (2645 lb).
· Length: 41 ft 8 in (12.7 m)
· Rotor diameter: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
· Height: 11 ft 8 in (3.56 m)
· Disc area: 962 ft² (89 m²)
· Empty weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer%27s_Weight_Empty): 2,668 lb (1,210 kg)
· Useful load: 2,347 lb (internal) (1,065 kg (internal))
· Max. takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_takeoff_weight): 6,000 lb (2,722 kg)
· Powerplant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_engine): 1 × Allison 250-C47B (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolls_Royce_Model_250&action=edit&redlink=1) turboshaft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboshaft), 813 shp (606 kW)
Performance
· Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Regulatory_V-speeds): 140 knots (260 km/h)
· Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 133 knots (152 mp/h, 246 km/h)
· Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_(aircraft)): 324 nmi (372 mi, 598 km)
· Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aircraft)): 18,690 ft (5,698 m)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_407

Both types of helicopters are about the same size, with only one foot of difference. Either one of these could be used to determine the size of the helicopter in the photo.

[Elevenaugust]

The banner would still be flying illegally because any aircraft at any time, would have to be flying at 1,000 feet or above. 11A gives an estimation of the altitude at 864 feet (at a distance of 5 miles).
Yes, and it also depends of the horizon line estimation. The above altitude estimations have been made using the red line as a reference, like you suggested it:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5763/screenshot007xn.png

A good thing would have to have a real measure of this horizon line relatively to the visible buildings in some photos taken from the New Museum roof. This way, it would be possible to give a closer estimation of the altitude of the object.

For example, if the horizon line is located at the green line, then the estimated altitudes (angular: 2.528°) are as follow:

- 0.1293 miles or 682 ft above sea level if 2.93 miles away
- 0.2207 miles or 1165 ft above sea level if 5.00 miles away

As you can see, there's still a possibility that the object was flying above 1000ft; it depends essentially, again, of the estimation of the location of the horizon line on the photos.

About the helicopter, I can give you a good estimation of its distance to the camera and its altitude, according to the estimated sizes you gave above:

- For a NYPD helicopter (length 42 ft 8 in) its distance to the camera is then approx. 48 miles and it's altitude above sea level (with the horizon line location estimated yet a the red line) is 4.215 miles or 22.255 ft

http://imageshack.us/a/img40/7080/anglehelicopter1.png

http://imageshack.us/a/img9/7214/anglhelicopter1bis.png

- For a Bell 407, applying the same method as above, both distance to the camera and altitude estimations are almost the same as there's only 1 foot difference in length.

[newyorklily]

Actually, I've never seen the horizon in that area.


When you look toward the horizon, you are looking toward the point of infinity. As you can see in my second photo, the closer you get to that point, the higher it is. It gives the illusion of an upward slope. That being said, I would say that the horizon in the photo you are asking me about, is closer to the red line. It is far behind the buildings.

Then my guess at the horizon being the red line was wrong. The helicopter can be no further than the west side of the Hudson River, 3.5 miles from the photographer. The Hudson is 1 mile wide, New Jersey is 70 miles wide. 48 miles away would put the helicopter near the middle of New Jersey. Neither the NYPD nor any of our sightseeing helicopters have the authority to go there. Also, the helicopters could not go up to 22,255 feet. Their service ceiling is 15,000 and 18,690 feet.

[Elevenaugust]

Then my guess at the horizon being the red line was wrong. The helicopter can be no further than the west side of the Hudson River, 3.5 miles from the photographer. The Hudson is 1 mile wide, New Jersey is 70 miles wide. 48 miles away would put the helicopter near the middle of New Jersey. Neither the NYPD nor any of our sightseeing helicopters have the authority to go there. Also, the helicopters could not go up to 22,255 feet. Their service ceiling is 15,000 and 18,690 feet.
Sorry, all my calculations above about the helicopter size/distance/altitude are wrong: I've done a conversion mistake! (miles instead of feet....)

Let's compute it again:

-1: The size of the helicopter is 0.1669°/ 43ft (approx.)
-2: Then helicopter's distance to camera is: 14835 ft or 2.81 miles

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/4998/helico3.png

-3: So, the estimated altitude according to this distance is 1646 ft or 0.31 miles

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/4987/helico4.png

[newyorklily]

Thank you, 11A. That makes a lot more sense.

Now, to get the horizon, we need the altitude. The altitude of the photographer on the observation deck is approximately 80 feet. The horizon, from his view, is 10.96 miles (57,863 feet). http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+of+the+horizon&a=*FS-_**HorizonDistance.d-.*HorizonDistance.h--&f2=80+ft&x=4&y=8&f=HorizonDistance.h_80+ft&a=*FVarOpt.1-_**-.***HorizonDistance.r---.*--

[Elevenaugust]

Thank you, 11A. That makes a lot more sense.

Now, to get the horizon, we need the altitude. The altitude of the photographer on the observation deck is approximately 80 feet. The horizon, from his view, is 10.96 miles (57,863 feet). http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+of+the+horizon&a=*FS-_**HorizonDistance.d-.*HorizonDistance.h--&f2=80+ft&x=4&y=8&f=HorizonDistance.h_80+ft&a=*FVarOpt.1-_**-.***HorizonDistance.r---.*--

Thank you, but it would be easier for me to directly have a good guess on the photos as to compute the horizon location is somewhat complicated and involve more parameters and maths to be accurate than the simple horizon line distance estimation. (I need to correctly do this to determine a "reference building" with known size, distance and compute its full angle of view; then deduce the visible angle of view of it within the frame of the photo, do some trigonometry using the center of the photo in the horizontal plane, etc.)

Any chances for you to go back to the observation deck and give me a good estimation (comparatively to the visible buildings in the background) of where this horizon line is located?

EDIT: another possibility would be to have other photos taken from the roof of another (with known size) building, from where the horizon line is visible, toward the same azimuth of the photos taken from the Museum observation deck.

[newyorklily]

Thank you, but it would be easier for me to directly have a good guess on the photos as to compute the horizon location is somewhat complicated and involve more parameters and maths to be accurate than the simple horizon line distance estimation. (I need to correctly do this to determine a "reference building" with known size, distance and compute its full angle of view; then deduce the visible angle of view of it within the frame of the photo, do some trigonometry using the center of the photo in the horizontal plane, etc.)

Any chances for you to go back to the observation deck and give me a good estimation (comparatively to the visible buildings in the background) of where this horizon line is located?

EDIT: another possibility would be to have other photos taken from the roof of another (with known size) building, from where the horizon line is visible, toward the same azimuth of the photos taken from the Museum observation deck.

Thank you, 11A but, I'm afraid I can't do that. However, we do know the heights of other buildings.
1 WFC is 577 feet
Tribeca Tower is 545 feet
The window, darkened out by the object is at 441 feet.

[majicbar]

http://www.ipaco.fr/EN_IFO_A_banne_121002.pdf

As near as I can see this is the only use of all of the actual original images in their whole form. It is still a desire on my part to see them on a link that can be studied closer.

Waves in the object can be seen in the composite on page 14 of this PDF.

(Also noted: Mixed dating on the PDF's cover: October 02, 2012 and 30/10/2012, (this is only noted because dating inconsistencies are a big issue on the "MAJIC" papers).

http://s525.beta.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/186.jpg.html#/user/nylily/media/186.jpg.html?&_suid=136209047630009713445859794192

newyorklilly took this shot from the observation deck on the 8th floor I think it was said. The horizon can be inferred from projecting the 8th floor in the multiple buildings in the image with some effort. This should be the same as the horizon at infiinty.


Assuming that the aircraft has strayed off of the officially allowed corridor, how long was it out of compliance? The issue arises because of the similar "intercept delay" seen in the fighter coverage of the Ground Zero events of September 11, 2001 where there was quite a while in the delay of "fighter cover" that day.

[montalk]

For your consideration: http://www.flysigns.com/op-new-york-long-island.php

It's an aerial advertising company that serves NY/LI with helicopter-towed banners. There is a pic at that link (3rd square button at top of page) similar to the one problemchild posted, showing how far behind the helicopter the banner is towed. Maybe those two pics can be cross referenced with the UFO image, to see whether the distance between object and helicopter is consistent with the aerial advertising pics.

Info from the link:


We also offer giant helicopter towed banners in the New York area, up to 15,000 square feet available upon request. Lead times vary but range from 10-21 days. LED lighted night signs can be flown from one hour after sunset till one hour before sunrise over Lower Manhatten, Queens, The Bronx, Long Island, East River, The Hudson River and all along Long Beach, Jones Beach, Fire Island, The Hamptons Beaches, all the way to Montauk. We can tow your airplane banner from sunrise till sunset, but we have to drop the banner by sunset at the airport. All aerial banners are flown between 1,000-1,500 feet in the downtown New York area and at 500 feet over the East River, The Hudson River and all local beaches. Custom aerial billboards are available up to 40 feet tall by 120 feet long in our New York area locations. We utilize all 7 foot tall aerial banner letters for your banner tow, customized to your liking in either red or black. All aerial billboard and aerial banner production is done in house at one of our production facilities. Shipping fees may apply to the New York area. We here at FlySigns.com, still offer both hand painted and computer printed aerial billboards ranging from $1.00-$2.25 per square foot. Billboards or logo boards can be adapted to carry a changeable 7 foot tall text letter message.


There are only a couple aerial advertising companies that serve NYC. They may have special permission to fly that doesn't apply to private planes.

[Elevenaugust]

OK, without making any complicated calculations, I finally found a mean to have the horizon position with Google Earth, using the 3D buildings feature.

I placed myself as if I was the photographer, at the top of the New Museum, trying to reproduce with GE the exact relative positions of the background buildings, then I took a screenshoot of the general view.

http://imageshack.us/a/img59/8268/horizon1.png

Next, without modifying anything else, I removed the 3D feature from GE to let appear the horizon line:

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/7274/horizon2.png

Finally, adding the two screenshoot using layers gives me the exact position of the horizon line relatively to the position of the buildings:

http://imageshack.us/a/img405/8729/horizon3.png

Now that we have our horizon line (materialized by the black line), I just have to superimposed it with my previous estimations:

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9779/horizon4.png

While the superimposition is not 100% accurate (hard to do as there's still some little perspective differences), it will not significantly change the results that shows that the horizon line is likely located between the orange and the pink line, let's say to facilitate the measures, the orange one.

If the horizon line is located at the orange line position on my sketch above, the altitude object was of:

- 0.1976 miles or 1043 ft above sea level if 2.93 miles away
- 0.3372 miles or 1780 ft above sea level if 5.00 miles away

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/3214/horizon5v.png

Now if one day someone (Lily?) could check directly on the top of the Museum building if this horizon estimation is accurate, it would be good!

[newyorklily]

How would I do that, 11A? People are not allowed out on the top of buildings in NYC. The only options would be several miles north at the Empire State Building http://www.esbnyc.com/observatory.asp or 30 Rockefeller Plaza http://www.topoftherocknyc.com/

[Elevenaugust]

How would I do that, 11A? People are not allowed out on the top of buildings in NYC. The only options would be several miles north at the Empire State Building http://www.esbnyc.com/observatory.asp or 30 Rockefeller Plaza http://www.topoftherocknyc.com/
Sorry, lily, I used the wrong word.

I meant that maybe you could one day came back to the observation deck, not the roof.

[newyorklily]

Sorry, lily, I used the wrong word.

I meant that maybe you could one day came back to the observation deck, not the roof.

And do what? I've already said (and shown) that I am not capable of determining where the horizon is by looking at the buildings.

[Elevenaugust]

And do what? I've already said (and shown) that I am not capable of determining where the horizon is by looking at the buildings.
Well, a panoramic view could possibly be helpful as (just a guess, I really don't know) there's possibly the horizon line visible at one point between two building, not necessarily in the exact same POV as the one in the "ufo" photo.

[CasperParks]

The phrase “Smoking Gun” is popular in television shows, film and literature.

The term is often used in regards to conspiracies dealing with assassination of political and famous people, and with UFOs, aliens and government cover-ups.

Government documents and photographs are debunked. Abductees telling their stories are written off as mentally ill. Even if confirmed as real, debunkers continue having a heyday.

“Smoking Gun” for UFOs, alien and government cover-ups equals:

1) Alien technology in the form of a spacecraft, and or something humans on Earth are not able to make at this time.

2) An extraterrestrial entity dead or alive. Preferably the latter.

[newyorklily]

Well, a panoramic view could possibly be helpful as (just a guess, I really don't know) there's possibly the horizon line visible at one point between two building, not necessarily in the exact same POV as the one in the "ufo" photo.


That's what I did when I went down there last year - took pictures and measurements.

Southwest:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/197.jpg

Northwest:

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/173.jpg

[Elevenaugust]

Thanks Lily but, unfortunately the horizon line is not visible either way. So I guess that I will stick to my calculations using GE on my post #127.

[ProblemChild]

"Airplane Banner with Geico Ad flying over Downtown Seattle." Not the IDF banner but the the similarity is stiking.

http://www.seattlerex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/planebanner4.jpg