Hm, I do not particularly agree with the conclusions of this fella.For example, I would like to see his calculations regaring the length of the track the "thing" left in its wake. Mainly because this is a 2-dimensional image, so any 3-dimensional info is lost.Explicitly, if you look to a parabola, ellipse, circle or curve in general from one an angle, it appears "straighter", on one hand, and on the other hand the the real 3-dimensional length of the curve may be much longer than the length calculated from the 2-dimensional photo. This could drastically reduce the speed of the object.
One might also do the following: google "November 22 in Australia" and you will find two interesting things.
The first one is that there was a rugby game on this date between Australia and England. The aussies lost at the last minute, but in the absence of a time frame the object could very well be a flare shot by a supporter. Furthermore, the area seems to be a harbor-like area, so a flare os sorts is not that inconcivable.
The second thing is that on the same date there is a UFO report in the same area, decribing a similar thing (of course, this does not mean it was a UFO sighting, despite the claims). Now my aussie geographical knowledge is more than pitiful, but from what little info is in the the UFO sighting report, it appears to me that a similar phenomenon was observed in the same general area. Moreover, from the details in the report, it apears that it was the very same phenomenon that was observed (independently), and the decription disagrees with the APOD analysis in several respects, and invalidates several of the conclusions. Or at the very least it casts doubts in the aforementioned conclusions. So the APOD guy was rather sloppy in doing his homework.
