Rocket, Meteor, or Fast moving UFO?

Here's a video compilation of other meteors burning up in the atmosphere for comparison sake:



Regarding the video in the OP, the curved trajectory is suspect, but I wonder if that's an illusion, somehow. If its slowed down enough to lose momentum and fall in a discernible arc, I can't imagine it would still be burning like that - at least not from the atmosphere friction. Maybe still burning after being ignited by atmosphere friction? If a piece of space junk, there could be any number of materials ignited and still burning, maybe.

A very wide angle lens would make it look like its path is bowing, even when its still very straight, but the other objects in the shot (the power lines especially) aren't bowed, so I'm convinced that's not it.

Another question is, why fake something like this? It just looks like either a meteor or piece of random space junk burning up. Maybe someone was just doing it as practice - as an exercise in CGI work or it's a cut from some project they were working on?

reply to post by LifeInDeath


Wow! What an amazing reference video. You can see similar flaring and trajectories. The trajectory of the object in the first post doesn't appear to be exactly perpendicular to the lens. This will make an arc appear "suspect." Sadly, we only see 11 seconds and I imagine the object broke apart shortly after it disappears behind the building. There is nothing here that would lead me to believe this is more than a meteor or space junk.

well the welders arc light seems like it's a meteor, rather than a rocket,

why it stutters, i don't know.

the arc of the trajectory and the brightness of the trail would seem to me, that it was above the clouds

and falling in.

but way up there?

not a rocket scientist, btw.

but it does seem a little too perfect.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
But again, this video is 100% FAKE.

edit on 5-10-2010 by IgnoreTheFacts because: I can't spell, lol.

September 23, 2006
Meteor Blaze... awesome!!!
Meteorite blaze over Guadalajara Mexico. mike.rincondelhuevo.com

Boloid



meteorite crash in alberta better footage



Police dash cam of Meteor over Edmonton, Canada

What a odd thread this turned out to be. Somewhat of a odds beater really. We have two "experts" with opposite opinions, which makes it kind of confusing when one is trying to learn about cgi and what to look for, and then we have Phage, which I think might have actually liked something for a change!

I wonder where that thing came down or if it just totally disintegrated. Kind of scary though as we are seeing more and more of these as of late. One big one could be a real problem for somebody someplace.

I'm not convinced it's a real meteor.
Note what happens when the Edmonton meteor passes behind a cloud. Note what happens when any of these meteors pass behind a cloud. Of course, every one is different but the tail and lighting just don't seem right in the OP video.




To also add some confusion, note that Mike, apparently the original poster of the video, is a computer graphics artist.

This is my growing art gallery, where you will find digital art, 3D, CG, renders or whatever you call it. The oldest of these images was completed in the summer of 2004 so this is a compendium of my work to date.

mike.rincondelhuevo.com...

The lens flare is too obvious, I'm pretty sure this is CG.

Looks like it's going toward the west (if that is a sunset) from the northeast. There have been several missle tests from White Sands and Vandenburg recently. Probably this.

reply to post by NightFlight


Thats a long distance to travel to only have that bit of a tail isnt it? I mean, dont rocket launches have long long tails that stay with them for awhile?

reply to post by Phage


Those are at night though, where the only bright source of light is the meteor itself. This was. looking at the sky colour around sunset, so the clouds are actually lit almost from underneath by the setting sun. As clouds are, essentially water vapour and if they are not that dense they are , in effect , almost see through. Just a fortunate set of circumstances where you have the sky lit from both beneath, by the setting sun and from above by the meteor and the clouds themselves are relatively wispy in their density.

The relatively steady burn is most likely the result of this particular meteor being a solid object, not a ball of cosmic dirt. A small lump of possibly an almost smooth pure nickel rock . The flashes are wholly consistent with the slightly rougher edges being burned off as it tumbles into the upper atmosphere. Nothing more than, a fairly rare set of circumstances really

reply to post by FireMoon

Very thin cloud layers can be translucent and if it weren't for that one thick cloud which the object crosses I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. There is no sign of the appearance of the trail being influenced by the thicker cloud at all.

BTW, Clouds are not composed of water vapor. Water vapor is invisible. Clouds are composed of water droplets.

Interesting find Phage.

This kind of back story certainly heightens my suspissions. In looking at all reference material I still feel the OPs footage is in line with the reference. What makes the OPs video "spectacular" is the time of day, which in the film idustry is called "magic hour." The sun is rising or setting an it gives off the million dollar light that can make a homely girl look like a runway model. This time of day would certainly account for the brilliance of the tail. In closer inspection of the tail you can see the strobing effect has caused separations in the tailing. We don't see the object pass through a cloud. If you take this and view it at full screen and stop the video just a few frames before it passes behind the building, take a look at the path of tail. You can see faint smoke after the fiery part of the tail disappears. The glow from the stobing can be seen on the wall camera left and appears faint. This leads me to believe we are looking at a small object. The only thing I find a little suspect is that we do not see the strobing affect the clouds. But you cannot really tell how far off in the background they really are.

In looking the artists body of work, in the link given and his youtube and blog.

www.mike.rincondelhuevo.com...

"Es curioso como me di cuenta de la lluvia de estrellas que mencioné arriba. Estaba ayer revisando mi correo y ví una avalancha de e-mails concernientes a comentarios hechos en un video que colgué hace casi 3 años en YouTube. Es un video que esta posteado en esta misma página con fecha de 30 de septiembre del 2006. Muestra un meteorito incendiándose en su entrada a la atmósfera con un atardecer espectacular de fondo. Por curiosidad visite la pagina de mi video en YouTube y por entonces las visitas rondaban las 970000, esto apenas ayer por la tarde asi que caí en la cuenta de que la gente estaba visitando videos de meteoritos debido a la lluvia de estrellas de estos dias. Hace un momento volví a abrir la página y las visitas se habían disparado a 998000, o sea casi 30000 en menos de 24 horas. Según yo en una media hora mas habré roto la barrera del millón de visitas. Y por si te da flojera mover el scroll hasta el principio de esta página para ver el video, lo reposteo en esta entrada."

This is the preface to his posting on his blog. I don't se habla espanish...

Looking at all the material in his blog it appears that he is just posting things of interest. There is no body of work that we can see him using CGI and a video medium. Nothing that shows a "magnum opus."

reply to post by QuantumDisciple

If you, as I do, see the object in as being front of the cloud deck it cannot be a meteor. Meteors are no longer incandescent by the time they reach cloud levels.

Most meteors occur in the region of the atmosphere called the thermosphere. This "meteoric region" lies between about 80 km and 120 km (50 to 75 miles) in altitude. This is a general guideline only, since very fast meteors may first become visible above this height, and slow, bright meteors may penetrate below this band.

www.amsmeteors.org...

That being the case, the fact that "Mike" labeled it a "blazing meteor" would cast more doubt on its authenticity.

What do think of the idea put forth by Pazcat that a video of a normal aircraft contrail was used, sped up, and the "head" added after the fact?

Originally posted by Phage
Allegedly taken in Mexico.

The flickering effect would tend to make me think that it is not a rocket, unless it's malfunctioning.

It seems to be beneath the clouds which would preclude it being a meteor.

It's interesting but I can't rule out CGI. The main thing that comes to mind is that the object is not kept centered in the frame. But that is not necessarily meaningful.

Phage...ya sure it's not Jupiter?

I don't buy these rocket explanations lately. Rockets as a rule, aren't usually seen whirling overhead in the middle of a city (see: Norway spiral)

If anything I'd lean more towards a meteor but what do I know. Apparently everything I question turns out to be Jupiter. Right Phage?

reply to post by Phage


We several examples of meteors remaining incandesent through and after cloud layer in the reference video. The trajectory doesn't really fit that of an airplane.

"It's funny how I noticed the rain of stars I mentioned above. I was checking my mail yesterday and saw a flood of e-mails regarding comments made in a video that hung almost 3 years ago on YouTube. This is a video that posted on this page dated September 30, 2006. It shows a meteor on fire as it enters the atmosphere with a spectacular sunset in the background. Out of curiosity visit my video page on YouTube and then swarmed over 970,000 visits, this just hours ago so I realized that people were visiting meteorite videos due to the rain of stars these days. Just now I opened the page and visits have been shot 998000, or nearly 30000 in less than 24 hours. As I took half an hour but I will have broken the barrier of one million visits. And if you're too lazy to move the scroll to the top of this page to see the video, repost this entry. "

Rough translation of the guys comment...

reply to post by QuantumDisciple

No.
The examples do not show meteors passing through cloud layers. They show meteors passing above and past cloud layers.

What is wrong with the trajectory in reference to an aircraft?

reply to post by Phage


Without sighting all the examples in all the different videos. Just watch the dashboard cam of the police car one. You see the meteor pass through the clouds and remain incandescent.

I suppose it could be from a WWII Kamakazi...that's what the trajectory looks like to me.

Originally posted by Phage
What is wrong with the trajectory in reference to an aircraft?

The trajectory could match that of a crashing aircraft, but combine that with it being on fire, and it (like a rocket), would probably have some kind of vapor or smoke trail.

At this point, I'm leaning a bit toward CGI, but what do I know?