Help identify the strange segmented light captured on video

I am currently investigating a series of sightings of unexplained lights in the sky outside a small city in Missouri. A middle aged couple has been observing these lights since January when they go outside in the evening to smoke. The lights are always in the same place in the sky each night, high enough they resemble stars and planets. For a while, the couple believed they were looking at stars. But after closer observation, they began to notice that a few certain peculiar lights never moved from their usual position over time. They see these lights flashing and changing color, (from white, to red, to blue, and sometimes yellow,) moving back and forth, and sometimes moving in random squiggly patterns. They do not move across the sky as stars or planets would, but stay in the same spot over the evening, and have been there since January.


These folks have never given much thought to UFOs and have never really payed much attention to the programs on the topic of UFOs, or read any books. In fact, they were pretty skeptical of the whole subject. But after watching what they originally thought were stars, showing such unusual behavior, they began to question their previous belief, or lack thereof.

A few weeks ago, the woman was on her glass enclosed porch. She lit up a cig, looked up, and saw one of the odd "stars" with 4-5 smaller stars to it's left. It was moving back and forth, so she decided to record with her cell phone, (an Iphone 6S,) even though the star gave her an uneasy feeling. She braced her phone firmly against the window frame on the right side and hit record. About 11 seconds later a bright beam shot down onto the ground approximately 10 feet from her. It appeared that the beam originated from one of the smaller stars. It freaked her out so bad, she stopped the recording and ran inside, terrified. At that point she was afraid to go back outside ever again.

Here's where it gets strange. When they looked over the recording, they realized that what, to the witnesses' naked eye, appeared to be a "beam of light" shooting down from the star, was actually something shooting UP from the ground. And it doesn't look like a "beam" at all. It's a segmented, pinched, tubular form with a front and back end - not a continuous beam of light. It appears darker and dimmer in the pinched or narrow bands. It does not move at the speed of light, but much slower. Yet, it moves much faster than a firefly. We were able to capture it's upward movement in 3 still frames of the video.
First, you see it with 4 segments entering the frame:



Then you see it higher, with 3 longer segments:



Then finally you see it with 4 segments again, with the back one being smaller. It appears to get more slender and longer as it ascends:




We have found other anomalies when we brighten the photos. But we do not know if these are a product of the light itself, or something related to digital photography. In the following series, we took video stills and raised the brightness level way up, hoping to see what else might show up in the darkness. Three frames with the light, and the frame immediately after:










In the original video, you see a very tiny light just to the right of center. You can see this light move back and forth. This movement was what prompted her to record. At the 8 second mark, you see a bright light to the left flash on, then off. (The witness did not see the light that flashed on and off as she watched the sky. She has no idea what that was.) Then at the 11 second mark, you see the segmented tubular object we are calling a beam, for lack of a better word.



When 3 of us went out to the home of the witnesses to talk with them in person, the lights were there. One of the investigators used an astronomy app on her phone to attempt to identify the two "stars" the witnesses were seeing nightly. In person, these lights stood out and were easily seen. But the sky mapping app had no name attached to them. The other stars in view, even the ones much smaller had names or numbers to identify them. But the two in question had no names.

It might be worth mentioning that the witnesses live about 20 miles, as the crow flies, from the outer perimeter of an army base. They live in a semi remote area, with no neighbors nearby. I will mention again that she was watching this with her own eyes, while pointing the camera at the star-like light. She thought the beam shot down, but the camera shows otherwise. So this was not just some glare that only showed up on the video. The spot where this light form apparently originated was just 10 feet in front of her in clear view. There was no one there, or she would have seen them.

Now, I'm not saying this is aliens. But it's definitely unidentified. That's why I am posting this here. I have seen some great analytical skills from the members here, and hope someone can shed some light on this unusual image captured on video.

a reply to: 321equinox

Might be the same kind of artefact/cryptid that is or is responsible for "flying rods". Hard to say for sure being that their existence is debatable.

a reply to: 321equinox

A few weeks ago, the woman was on her glass enclosed porch. She lit up a cig,

It's impossible to identify anything from the 14 second clip but I suspect the movement of the camera and a terrestrial light source is responsible.

a reply to: gortex
That would certainly explain why the light went in an upward direction

So this is your first time recording a video at low light ?

One can even hear the movement of the Camera...

And you see dots because its pixels...

Try go out at Night at recording again.. This time swing your Camera around.. And u get same effect as light streaks.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 321equinox

A few weeks ago, the woman was on her glass enclosed porch. She lit up a cig,

It's impossible to identify anything from the 14 second clip but I suspect the movement of the camera and a terrestrial light source is responsible.

Hello Gortex!

Yes, I was actually thinking the same. If you put up the sound of the video at max you can even hear what looks like a move from the cameraman.

Also, I already encountered this "segmented line effect" on a photography. The witness took a 1s exposure time photo with the flash on a dark scene. The flash instantly froze the scene then the witness thought that the exposure was over and immediately put down the camera while the shutter was still open. The result was this strange "segmented line effect":



Close-up:



The light source was a streetlamp and since the electrical current typically alternates at 60 cycles per second (60hz in US and Canada and 50hz in other countries), it gives this dotted or segmented effect during the exposure time.

I strongly suspect, as Gortex rightly suggested, that it was the same kind of effect in the video, the light just being a terrestrial light source artificially elongated during the exposure time of each frame of the video and the downwards movement of the camera artificially gives this apparent movement of the light from the bottom to the top of the frames.

To the OP:

The lights are always in the same place in the sky each night, high enough they resemble stars and planets. For a while, the couple believed they were looking at stars.[...]

One of the investigators used an astronomy app on her phone to attempt to identify the two "stars" the witnesses were seeing nightly. In person, these lights stood out and were easily seen. But the sky mapping app had no name attached to them. The other stars in view, even the ones much smaller had names or numbers to identify them. But the two in question had no names.

I suggest you, if possible, to take some photos with a mounted camera on a tripod with a long exposure time of the part of the sky where these "stars" were standing at, then send me the original photos plus a copy with these "unknown stars" pointed out. I could check with a special software if these stars can eventually be identified.

a reply to: Jekka

I never took rods any more seriously than the flashlit specks of dust commonly called "orbs." Rods strike me as insects. Whereas this object appears to be luminous, or some form of light.

a reply to: gortex

I agree that the clip is very short. But when the beam struck, the witness was both startled and frightened. The recording ended there. As I explained, she was watching the distant light when the beam suddenly struck. She was holding the camera to the side, pointed in the general direction she was looking. But she was looking directly at it when it happened. The camera happened to record it as well. Considering that she judged it to be 10 feet from her, it appears to be relatively large. If it were not for the fact that she was looking at it, the reflection on glass theory might make sense to me. (I assume you were suggesting that by your highlighted phrase in the quote.) If you mean some other terrestrial light source, what would look like this? I can think of no known light source that produces a form like this. I am open for suggestions and speculation. I'm baffled.

As for movement, I suspect the lights sudden move to the right near the end is camera movement. It's possible the back and forth movement of the light up until that point could be camera movement too. But, it was the back and forth movement that prompted the witness to record in the first place.

I am personally more interested in identifying what the segmented tubular form is. It moved fast enough that it registered as a beam of light to the witness. The still shots reveal otherwise. It registered as a descending beam, when it was ascending. That could be because she was observing something above she perceived as a possible threat. It made more sense to her mind in that moment for it to be coming from above.

a reply to: 321equinox

But she was looking directly at it when it happened. The camera happened to record it as well.

Sorry but the story doesn't match the evidence.

If it were not for the fact that she was looking at it, the reflection on glass theory might make sense to me. (I assume you were suggesting that by your highlighted phrase in the quote.)If you mean some other terrestrial light source, what would look like this?

That is what I'm suggesting , you say she lit up a cig , perhaps a reflection of that.

I am personally more interested in identifying what the segmented tubular form is.

I believe elevenaugust has posted a picture that would explain that.

a reply to: Spacespider
Not my recording. But yes, I did hear the movement that coincides with the dim pinpoint of light darting off to the right. I suspect that was camera movement. I appreciate your comment. I will have her try to recreate the effect by swinging the camera.


a reply to: elevenaugust
Thank you! That is both interesting and very helpful. I appreciate the visual references! That makes a lot of sense.

I am still confused on a few aspects though. In the still shots I posted, what would explain the effect that makes it look like the narrow sections are moving from the front end to the back. Hard to put into words here... there is a small segment at the tail end of 4 in the first shot. Then it's as if that tail section gets squeezed off, leaving three longer ones. Then in the final shot, it's like the small section in the tail is getting squeezed off again as a new one forms on the front. It appears to change as it moves. In your photo examples, the segments grow longer and dimmer, the farther they are from the original light source.
Also, in the first 3 unaltered still shots I posted, they have a very clean outline, with a clear beginning and end. No fading out.
Would these effects be possible in the scenario you suggested?

Thank you for your reply. I will have the witness try to recreate this effect, and see if there is any kind of light source in the vicinity.

a reply to: 321equinox

You're welcome!

Regarding the aspect differences of the narrow sections of the segmented lines between the 3 shots, it is likely because the cameraman applied an increasing speed to its downwards movement, while the exposure time of each frame is still the same; at the contrary of my photo example where this speed is regular.

The results are :
1- a more elongated segment in frame 2 than in frame 1, and more again in frame 3 comparatively to frame 2.
2- an increasingly narrowed aspect
3- a longer (dark as it's the - very short - lapse time that separate each frame) space between each segment.

It's maybe more visible and understandable in the composited frame below where I put together the 3 frames, the length of each of them in pixel and the space that separates them, also in pixels :



As you can see, both the segments length and the space between the segments increase. Note that as the segment in frame 1 is a the very bottom part, it's possible that there is a missing part of it, outside the frame.

I hope that it makes sense for you

Well it certainly looks like a modulating light of some kind, I don't know about the rest, you couldn't even say that this is the sky at night, you could be under the duvet, playing with your winky lights.

originally posted by: 321equinox
a reply to: Jekka

I never took rods any more seriously than the flashlit specks of dust commonly called "orbs." Rods strike me as insects. Whereas this object appears to be luminous, or some form of light.

Yes rods are photographic distortions of birds, bats or insects just as this video appears to be a nearly identical type of photographic distortion of a terrestrial light source. The process which created these distortions is very similar and the solution to get rid of the distortions is the same for this light artifact as it is for the rods...use a high-speed camera and the artifacts are greatly minimized or disappear. An example of how a high speed camera eliminates these artifacts is shown here, and it would do the same for a flickering 60Hz light source:



Kudos to ATS for nailing the likely explanation, especially the relevant example posted by elevenaugust.

I think Elevenaugust has it right

a reply to: 321equinox

Ignoring the beam aspect for a moment. I'd like to know what "apparent magnitude" the anomalous lights are? If that's one of them that blinks on the video then it's pretty damned bright indeed. To make an estimate use the known stars in the sky to try and give some idea of the intensity of the anomalous ones. With Jupiter and Mars still present in the night sky you have two pretty good guides for estimation.

a reply to: gortex

Thanks gortex. I will ask her if she was still smoking when she began recording.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Thank you so much elevenaugust, for taking the time to both explain and illustrate this phenomenon. I don't know much about the usual camera anomalies that can happen in instances such as this one, and was hoping for someone like yourself who would be able to explain what showed up on the recording.

I still fully believe the witness saw a beam shoot down. But I am starting to wonder if she just didn't get that in the frame as she recorded. Her camera phone was not in line with her own view, but to the side. She was aiming in the general direction she was looking, but perhaps the beam she saw was off to the left.

As for the light source that would have caused such a thing as you described, would it have to be right in line with this, like directly below or above it? Could it have been off to the side, above or behind her, for example? Considering that the beam she saw startled her, and I assume she fumbled to turn the recording off and get away asap, maybe she hit something on the phone that triggered the flash, or perhaps a light was on inside the house, or above her on the porch. Could one of those things, if they apply in her case, have caused this, when they were not in direct line with the light we see on the recording?
Again, thank you!

a reply to: Arbitrageur
That was certainly interesting. I will be saving that video for future reference to show to the rod believers. It also illustrates how differently things appear using the different recording speeds. My witness used her phone because it was handy. I will suggest she try a higher speed recording, if she has access to that, in her future attempts. Thanks Arbitrageur!


a reply to: FireMoon
The light that blinked on and off was not something she saw herself. Her husband asked her if it could have been a firefly. But she felt certain it was not, as it would have had to have been on the glass in front of her. She felt she would have noticed that.
The planets were not within view the night we visited, in the area of the sky that this was happening. There are a lot of trees blocking the full view of the sky too. But if the lights they have been watching for months stick around, eventually there will be planets in view to compare. There will definitely be plenty of stars. Thanks for the suggestion FireMoon!

a reply to: 321equinox

It's another example of how camera phones and it doesn't matter who makes them are not great at night even with still images never mind video.

If these things are regular find someone with a descent camera set up ie a good quality DSLR & lenses get them along and see what they get.

Manual focus & exposure are best in these situations here are a couple of still images from a video I shot.

Camera settings not changed from last settings & manual focus I used gave me this



The typical light in the sky.

Camera exposure & focus both manual.



The local Police helicopter.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 321equinox

A few weeks ago, the woman was on her glass enclosed porch. She lit up a cig,

It's impossible to identify anything from the 14 second clip but I suspect the movement of the camera and a terrestrial light source is responsible.

Not a bright (pun not intended) reply! I ask the op why he/she did not include one or two photos of the glass enclosed porch and since you say that "It's impossible to identify anything from the 14 second clip..." then any suspicion seems based on impossibility. We are told that the lady was considerate to make sure that she got steady footage: "She braced her phone firmly against the window frame on the right side and hit record." When you watch the video and the light appears at 0:08 (first screen grab, below) you see a nice, unstreaked, clear circle. If the cellphone would have been handheld, freely, that white circle would have looked differently. And the "streak" at 0:11 (second screen grab) would have been possibly blurry. And since a cellphone's shutter speed is to be taken into account when shooting extremely fast objects, that shoelace-like streak leaves a trail when in reality it's structure could be just one of the segments, as the argument is in some reports of rods. And what terrestrial source would you name?

originally posted by: Jekka
a reply to: 321equinox

Might be the same kind of artefact/cryptid that is or is responsible for "flying rods". Hard to say for sure being that their existence is debatable.

No, their existence is not debatable, your opinion is. Usually, such worthless opinions are based on the opinionated not having any experience with the subject and parrot similar opinions. For your information, the FBI took them damn seriously. Read about it here which legitimized the reality of rods: www.paradigmresearchgroup.org...'s%20UFO%20video.htm

Damn fast Rod or "missile"?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: 321equinox
a reply to: Jekka

I never took rods any more seriously than the flashlit specks of dust commonly called "orbs." Rods strike me as insects. Whereas this object appears to be luminous, or some form of light.

Yes rods are photographic distortions of birds, bats or insects just as this video appears to be a nearly identical type of photographic distortion of a terrestrial light source. The process which created these distortions is very similar and the solution to get rid of the distortions is the same for this light artifact as it is for the rods...use a high-speed camera and the artifacts are greatly minimized or disappear. An example of how a high speed camera eliminates these artifacts is shown here, and it would do the same for a flickering 60Hz light source:

Kudos to ATS for nailing the likely explanation, especially the relevant example posted by elevenaugust.

Your "knowledge" is non-existent. And that guy in the video is a fool. But don't derail the thread with bs, please.

a reply to: klassless

She may have braced the phone against the window but the problem still relies on EXPOSURE setting although the phone may be stationery to get an image the iso may be set high and the shutter speed relatively long. The phone may be shooting at 30/60 frames per second the shutter speed may be close to the frame rate ie 1/40th of a second at 30 frames per second. Any small bright object passing close by would look blurry.

As for the comments about Rods they ARE caused by a slow frame rate it's plain to see on the video that Arbitrageur posted.



Lets see a video from one of the FAMOUS rod believers on youtube that uses cameras that shoot at HIGH FRAME rates.

Lets see if you believers can find one with the camera make model and settings similar to the above video that still shows a rod I wont hold my breath

Many of us on here are long time amateur photographers (35+ years for me) or semi/professional photographers SO we understand the relationship between camera settings and speed of objects.