Circular "UFO" Footage Caught By Drone At Tepoztlán, Mexico On May 10, 2017

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: FireballStorm

That's a real stretch. The object in question moves very quickly in a straight line, while your "fluff" drifts in the wind. SMH

Well obviously close to the ground there is going to be more turbulence given that the wind has to blow around obstacles like trees etc. Does that mean that wind can't blow more or less "straight" well above the ground? The "object" passes through the camera's FOV in a second or less, so we don't really get much of a chance to observe it to see how straight it's flight path is.

So why exactly couldn't this be a seed?

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: shawmanfromny

If that is not some kind of fake it is really a good catch of a 1950ish classic flying saucer.. It is so good it probably is fake

but...if not....NEAT !

People are making drones into all sorts of shapes - there are now ufo shaped camera drones:

www.amazon.com...
www.theeventchronicle.com...

Put some circular slat grills above and below the fans to direct the airflow and instant UFO.

looks like an rare 100% real ufo to me

a reply to: shawmanfromny

haha... zing

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: FireballStorm

That's a real stretch. The object in question moves very quickly in a straight line, while your "fluff" drifts in the wind. SMH

Well obviously close to the ground there is going to be more turbulence given that the wind has to blow around obstacles like trees etc. Does that mean that wind can't blow more or less "straight" well above the ground? The "object" passes through the camera's FOV in a second or less, so we don't really get much of a chance to observe it to see how straight it's flight path is.

So why exactly couldn't this be a seed?

It would not show up on a negative. It would be white with the back ground. It would not be seen at the distance the object is away from the drone, either. Your camera view is right up on the falling cotton seed. That object is 400 ft or more away from the drone.

a reply to: FireballStorm

BAHAHHAHA!!!!
sorry.. lol.. I've just never seen a lone cottonseed zoom past at mach 5

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
I was looking for interesting "UFO" footage on both YouTube and the UFO Reddit page, when I discovered this gem. A drone, taking aerial video footage of the picturesque landscape of Tepoztlán, caught this strange, unidentified flying object zooming past it. I'm not saying this object is extraterrestrial in origin, but it's a clear video showing something that's clearly circular and not a bird. I'm not an expert in drone technology, but I've rarely seen a drone that has a "solid" oval shape. Normally, a drone has individual "arms" and prop guards for each of it's propellers. I don't see that on this object.
snip

I've already stated my opinion that I accept that it is a CGI construction or whatever other computer finagling was used. I just revisited the video and concentrated on the negative segment. I provide 3 screen shots. Whoever is responsible for this video blew it by not introducing the object in the sky so in regular play the object appears over terrain instead of in the sky. In the negative segment, first screen shot, we should see the object before appearing over the terrain. The second screen shot shows the object over the terrain and the third screen shot shows the object a little farther. The distance between the two shots shows that there was enough room for the object to be seen in the sky.

It's not a real object.

Beginning of negative sequence


First appearance of object - should have appeared in sky as a dark object. It would have stood out.


One distance between first and second appearance

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
I was looking for interesting "UFO" footage on both YouTube and the UFO Reddit page, when I discovered this gem. A drone, taking aerial video footage of the picturesque landscape of Tepoztlán, caught this strange, unidentified flying object zooming past it. I'm not saying this object is extraterrestrial in origin, but it's a clear video showing something that's clearly circular and not a bird. I'm not an expert in drone technology, but I've rarely seen a drone that has a "solid" oval shape. Normally, a drone has individual "arms" and prop guards for each of it's propellers. I don't see that on this object.
snip

I've already stated my opinion that I accept that it is a CGI construction or whatever other computer finagling was used. I just revisited the video and concentrated on the negative segment. I provide 3 screen shots. Whoever is responsible for this video blew it by not introducing the object in the sky so in regular play the object appears over terrain instead of in the sky. In the negative segment, first screen shot, we should see the object before appearing over the terrain. The second screen shot shows the object over the terrain and the third screen shot shows the object a little farther. The distance between the two shots shows that there was enough room for the object to be seen in the sky.

It's not a real object.

Beginning of negative sequence

First appearance of object - should have appeared in sky as a dark object. It would have stood out.

One distance between first and second appearance

You think a black object is going to show up in the sky on a negative image? Why do you think it is called "a negative" ?

Your post is mind blowing for all the wrong reasons.

originally posted by: SR1TX
That object is 400 ft or more away from the drone.

How do you know that? Do you know the size of the object?

originally posted by: SR1TX
You think a black object is going to show up in the sky on a negative image?

If a white object doesn't show up on a white background then in a negative image a black object will not show up on a black background, that's true.

If we darken the image enough I think we can see the object in the sky, in the frame before it appears with the ground behind it, but it appears with much less brightness than on the next frame.



To me, the biggest problem with this video appears in the zoomed in version, as we can clearly see the object in the sky.



Now, there is no reason for a zoomed-in version to show the object in a white background if the original doesn't show it, but that could happen if what we are being presented as original is in fact a reduced version of the object, as resizing the image could blend the object with the background.

Why do you think it is called "a negative" ?

A negative version of an image doesn't add or subtract any thing from the original image, the difference in brightness between the object and the background is the same. I never understood why some people think inverting the colours makes any difference, unless they don't have their monitors well calibrated.

PS: I made two images with all the frames that show the object, one with the camera movement and the second removing the camera movement. Maybe someone with better mathematics skills than mine is able to get an idea of the distance of the altitude of the object, as the perspective we get from the trajectory (assuming the trajectory was parallel to the ground) gives us an idea of how close to the level of the camera the object was.
(click the images for the full size version)

PS 2: does anyone know what the counter on the left is supposed to show?

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: FireballStorm

That's a real stretch. The object in question moves very quickly in a straight line, while your "fluff" drifts in the wind. SMH

Well obviously close to the ground there is going to be more turbulence given that the wind has to blow around obstacles like trees etc. Does that mean that wind can't blow more or less "straight" well above the ground? The "object" passes through the camera's FOV in a second or less, so we don't really get much of a chance to observe it to see how straight it's flight path is.

So why exactly couldn't this be a seed?

It would not show up on a negative. It would be white with the back ground. It would not be seen at the distance the object is away from the drone, either. Your camera view is right up on the falling cotton seed. That object is 400 ft or more away from the drone.

The above post shows you are not even capable of grasping basic concepts like how negatives and perspective works, as ArMap has shown in his post/s above.

The fact that your post has been starred multiple times despite being misleading on multiple levels shows that at least some of the people reading this thread are as ignorant as you are, why stars on this forum mean nothing, and the futility of trying to discuss relatively simple concepts with those who think they have all the answers, but in reality don't know their A from their E when it comes to the most BASIC principals that are relevant in this subject.

So pretty much par for the course on this forum..

originally posted by: Starcrossd
a reply to: FireballStorm

BAHAHHAHA!!!!
sorry.. lol.. I've just never seen a lone cottonseed zoom past at mach 5

See my post above. At least half of what I said applies to you also.

I'd love to see how you calculated the velocity to be "mach 5" when we have no idea of the distances involved. Laugh and roll your eyes all you want, but you are making yourself look stupid here to those who have a basic understanding of the principals involved.

Thought process (or rather "lack of thought process") like your above post is why virtually no one with an ounce of intelligence will take this subject seriously. If your goal is to drive off anybody trying to make legitimate comments based on facts and/or personal experience, then I suppose your pathetic attempt is a start.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

I think the uploader gets his material from different sources. It would be better for us if he had provided a link to the source of the original video. Again, to me it comes down to the motive of the original source uploader. If it were me, for example, I would have been a bit more creative than to have an indiscernible object in view for mere milliseconds. I just don't see the point.

It could be one of those circular drones, I have no idea how big they are or how fast they can move. There looks to be enough background detail for someone with enough observational skills to work it out. That person is not me, unfortunately.

originally posted by: FireballStorm
So why exactly couldn't this be a seed?

There's no apparent wind. The drone is steady. There is no movement among the trees.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: FireballStorm
So why exactly couldn't this be a seed?

There's no apparent wind. The drone is steady. There is no movement among the trees.

Why would wind be apparent? Wind is invisible, unless you have something that is "caught" by/in the wind. In this case we have no such points of reference (see below for why trees don't count), except for the possible seed.

I'm not very familiar with drones by any means, but I would assume that a drone like this works by finding it's position via GPS, and then adjusts by taking into consideration any wind and compensating for it in order remain steady. The very fact that it is steady suggests that, if there is any wind, it's more of a steady breeze and not very turbulent.

I agree that there is no obvious wind movement shown by the trees in the footage. However, the drone is not at tree level, and it's not uncommon to have some wind/breeze at altitude when there is near nothing near to the ground. I often observe low level clouds moving at a steady pace above me even on "still" days/nights. A light steady breeze is all that would be required to make a seed seem to tear past a drone camera if it was quite close.

As an aside, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the second (less obvious) object seen in the footage, which appears very close to the top right corner of the frame, while the first object is still in frame, but only just (also moving in what appears to me similar direction/pace, which supports the theory that wind and not intelligent propulsion are the cause of the movement). I guess because it doesn't look "UFO shaped", so hurts the theory that these are craft of some sort. I would argue that it supports the fluff/seed theory due to that fact that if they were seed you'd expect to see more of them about, and because of the shape, which suggests that it was just chance that the first object looks "UFO shaped".

a reply to: FireballStorm

I'm pretty sure that drones do not adjust themselves to compensate for wind gusts, I would assume that is completely down to the skill of the pilot. This is from a site called 'Dronelife.com'...

Wind Matters: On certain days when wind speeds reach into the double digits, it’s often best to exercise caution and wait until a more tranquil day for your next flight. There’s video after video on YouTube of some of the most powerful and expensive drones being swept away by prevailing wind gusts after flying too high and losing connection with the controller, and even that “fail-safe” GPS-enabled Return To Home feature will struggle and oftentimes fail when flying into a strong headwind. Trust me, just wait a couple days until the wind dies down.

Source:
The Seven Deadly Sins of Flying Drones

As you can read for yourself, windy days and drones don't really mix and that object was moving at some pace which would mean strong a air current. No offense, but for me the seed theory is highly unlikely.

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
snip
You think a black object is going to show up in the sky on a negative image? Why do you think it is called "a negative" ?

Your post is mind blowing for all the wrong reasons.

Thankfully, your ignorance has been noted.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: SR1TX
You think a black object is going to show up in the sky on a negative image?

If a white object doesn't show up on a white background then in a negative image a black object will not show up on a black background, that's true.

If we darken the image enough I think we can see the object in the sky, in the frame before it appears with the ground behind it, but it appears with much less brightness than on the next frame.
snip
To me, the biggest problem with this video appears in the zoomed in version, as we can clearly see the object in the sky.
snip
Now, there is no reason for a zoomed-in version to show the object in a white background if the original doesn't show it, but that could happen if what we are being presented as original is in fact a reduced version of the object, as resizing the image could blend the object with the background.

Why do you think it is called "a negative" ?

A negative version of an image doesn't add or subtract any thing from the original image, the difference in brightness between the object and the background is the same. I never understood why some people think inverting the colours makes any difference, unless they don't have their monitors well calibrated.

PS: I made two images with all the frames that show the object, one with the camera movement and the second removing the camera movement. Maybe someone with better mathematics skills than mine is able to get an idea of the distance of the altitude of the object, as the perspective we get from the trajectory (assuming the trajectory was parallel to the ground) gives us an idea of how close to the level of the camera the object was.
(click the images for the full size version)
snip
PS 2: does anyone know what the counter on the left is supposed to show?

Thanks for doing that, ArMaP, I appreciate it. You gave "legitimacy" to the object. I don't have your computer skills.

originally posted by: Lathroper
Thanks for doing that, ArMaP, I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

You gave "legitimacy" to the object.

That wasn't my intention. In fact, I think the video was faked in some way, that's why I said that there's no reason for the zoomed-in version to show the object against the white background if the original doesn't show it.

To me, that makes me think the object was added to the video and then the video was resized to what we see now.

I don't have your computer skills.

You just need to use a few tools and to practice.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Lathroper
Thanks for doing that, ArMaP, I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

You gave "legitimacy" to the object.

That wasn't my intention. In fact, I think the video was faked in some way, that's why I said that there's no reason for the zoomed-in version to show the object against the white background if the original doesn't show it.

To me, that makes me think the object was added to the video and then the video was resized to what we see now.

I don't have your computer skills.

You just need to use a few tools and to practice.

Well, without your enhancement, before hand I criticized the video's creator by saying that they failed to introduce the object because it wasn't visible in the sky. You brought it out, or in, so now I have to give credit to the creator because if it's fake footage, they at least out-thought me.