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

a reply to: Lathroper

As I said before, the fact we see it only in the supposed zoomed-in version makes me think it's fake, as one way of making fake images that look good is to fake them in a bigger version and then reduce them, as that way any slight mistakes tend to disappear in the resizing.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
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.

No offense taken. You are more than entitled to your own opinion, especially so if you qualify it by sharing your thought process, which is helpful for all involved IMHO.

I can see your logic here, and agree in principal, however, wind is not always "gusty" or turbulent. It can be light and constant sometimes, can it not? The quotes you pasted are all talking about gusty conditions, which is obviously not the case here. I don't see it say anywhere there that drones can't cope with a light and constant breeze.

As I mentioned before, my own experience with wind at altitude is that it tends to be constant. When was the last time time you saw a cloud "stuttering" around up there? You must have seen timelapses of clouds before? What did you see?

What would you define as "moving at some pace"?

Lets say (scenario 1) we have a camera, and an object that is small (lets say 1 inch across) but just 1 foot away crosses the FOV (field of view) of that camera. Lets also say that the camera has a 30mm lens for sake of argument, which has a horizontal angle of view of about 70 degrees. How long would an object take to traverse the whole FOV horizontally if it was going by at around 5 mph?

That's about running speed, and at 1 foot distance, the coverage of the 30mm lens, from left edge of frame to right edge would be around 2 and a bit feet perhaps (just roughly guesstimating this), would you agree? How long do you think it would take you to cover a bit over 2 feet, while running at "full pelt"? (you being the "object" here) 1 second tops? I would say a bit less perhaps..

Remember, the object did not even cross the entire frame, only a small corner, which it crossed in around 1 second (likely significantly less - anyone got accurate timings for it? -- looking at ArMaPs stacked images, it suggests about 12 frames and less than 0.5 seconds if the footage is 30fps), so all other things being equal, if it had crossed the entire FOV horizontally we could expect it to take perhaps 2-3 seconds tops, wouldn't you agree? I would expect most drone cameras to be a bit wider than 30mm though, so that extra angle would account for the extra time the object would take to cross the FOV, and we are still in the right sort of ball park, would you also agree?

Scenario 2 has a large object (perhaps 10 yards across) and at 100x the distance (100 feet), and traveling at the zippy pace of 5 mph again. At 100 feet our 30mm lens would be covering some 100's of feet along the horizontal (guestimate), which would take possibly tens of seconds to cover going at 5 mph.

Now that would hardly look zippy, but shrink the object down again, and move it back to one foot away from the camera, and we have an object crossing the entire FOV @ 5 mph (a borderline gentle breeze), in probably well under 2-3 seconds, which would look "zippy" - which is similar to what we are seeing with this footage. Same speed, but distance/perspective makes senario 1 look zippy, and 2 not.

Alternatively (scenario 3) we could have the object at 100 feet distance, and it would have to be going perhaps 300 mph in order to cross the frame at that distance in 2-3 seconds (or likely a lot less if ArMaPs stacked images are taken into account). It would be indistinguishable from scenario 1 as long as the object was scaled up in size significantly.

I fully acknowledge that there could be other (in-between) scenarios, but why do you think scenario 1 is not a viable option (but something along the lines of 3 is presumably?) assuming that you more or less agree with the above? If not, why not?

originally posted by: Lathroper

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.

I'm not entirely convinced it's fake footage, although that is always possible.

The second object I pointed out a couple of posts ago suggests not to me. What do you guys think?

That part of Mexico is home to a lot of UFO activity. There may be a base inside of a mountain...or a dormant volcano.

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: Lathroper

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.

I'm not entirely convinced it's fake footage, although that is always possible.

The second object I pointed out a couple of posts ago suggests not to me. What do you guys think?

I tried to see it by first playing the video at normal speed then slowing it down to 1/4 speed and, finally, I froze the video and moved it along at 1 frame at a time. Didn't see it. If you were to post a frame with an arrow added, I'd give it another look.

originally posted by: Lathroper

I tried to see it by first playing the video at normal speed then slowing it down to 1/4 speed and, finally, I froze the video and moved it along at 1 frame at a time. Didn't see it. If you were to post a frame with an arrow added, I'd give it another look.

Sure, I've marked both objects with an arrow in this frame:

originally posted by: crayzeed
I'll tell you what, that's some seriously steady footage for a drone. I call fake.

Drones with modern gimbals can shoot that steadily,
it looks like an object an F18 Super Hornet would love to track.

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: Lathroper

I tried to see it by first playing the video at normal speed then slowing it down to 1/4 speed and, finally, I froze the video and moved it along at 1 frame at a time. Didn't see it. If you were to post a frame with an arrow added, I'd give it another look.

Sure, I've marked both objects with an arrow in this frame:

Thanks for that effort. I froze the frame at 0:48 which is where the light spot appears and I must say, your vision is better than mine. But I'm not going to call it a UFO companion. There is clarity everywhere but the light spot has no visible detail or shape. I think that light spot was created by the camera's optics. I rocked 3 frames back and forth: 0:47, 0:48 and 0:49 and it's visible only on 0:48.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

It could be another modified drone to look saucer shaped, so a hoax but not a cgi hoax which would give it more credibility as cgi is easy to spot...!

a reply to: pigsy2400

CGI being easy to detect depends only on how much time the creator spent doing it and how careful he/she was, CGI can be undetectable.

Well, this video certainly has kicked up a lot of discussion, which is great to see. I am leaving it with this translation from the uploader's YT channel...

MATERIAL OWN - This recording was made by a Drone MavicPro in the municipality of Tepoztlán as part of a daily flight, between 5 and 6 in the afternoon of May 10, 2017 we noticed when reviewing the material that was found an object that could be seen as sphere or disk flying at a moderate speed over the skies of Tepoztlan, as is known in this locality the sightings are very regular so judge yourself with this brief analysis.

The uploader has other videos of ufos which seem to be appropriated from elsewhere. I will stick to my original question of motive and gain in going through the trouble of faking this. Although a mundane explanation is possible for the object, I assume we will never likely discover it and be left to draw our own conclusions.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
The uploader has other videos of ufos which seem to be appropriated from elsewhere.

I suppose that's why that video has that "own material" on the description.

I will stick to my original question of motive and gain in going through the trouble of faking this.

Gain is a relative thing. When people talk about gain they usually think about material gain, but faking a video can be made to gain experience in the techniques used (that's why some fake videos have been known to be made by film students, for example), to gain reputation (either locally or internationally), etc.

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: Lathroper

I tried to see it by first playing the video at normal speed then slowing it down to 1/4 speed and, finally, I froze the video and moved it along at 1 frame at a time. Didn't see it. If you were to post a frame with an arrow added, I'd give it another look.

Sure, I've marked both objects with an arrow in this frame:

Thanks for that effort. I froze the frame at 0:48 which is where the light spot appears and I must say, your vision is better than mine. But I'm not going to call it a UFO companion. There is clarity everywhere but the light spot has no visible detail or shape. I think that light spot was created by the camera's optics. I rocked 3 frames back and forth: 0:47, 0:48 and 0:49 and it's visible only on 0:48.

No problem. Thanks for taking the time to look.

It's also visible in at least one other frame, but I struggle to pause it at the right time using YT. Are you downloading the footage somehow, or using a tool/tools to look at individual frames?

I'm not convinced it's an optical artifact. It certainly doesn't behave like a ghost/ghosting (what many mistakenly refer to as "flare" or "lens flare"). Not being an optics designer/expert I can't say for sure that optics can be ruled out altogether however.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
The uploader has other videos of ufos which seem to be appropriated from elsewhere.

I suppose that's why that video has that "own material" on the description.

I will stick to my original question of motive and gain in going through the trouble of faking this.

Gain is a relative thing. When people talk about gain they usually think about material gain, but faking a video can be made to gain experience in the techniques used (that's why some fake videos have been known to be made by film students, for example), to gain reputation (either locally or internationally), etc.

I still stick with the contention that human nature [and to possibly gain experience in techniques] would push the hoaxer to fabricate something more elaborate than what we saw...they would not be able to help themselves, in my opinion.

a reply to: fromtheskydown

That depends, if I was going to make something like that I would start by something simple and, if things went well moved to more complex things.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: fromtheskydown

That depends, if I was going to make something like that I would start by something simple and, if things went well moved to more complex things.

If that is the case, then we shall have to keep our eyes on him!

Most likely one drone filmed the fly-by of another drone.

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: Lathroper

originally posted by: FireballStorm

originally posted by: Lathroper

I tried to see it by first playing the video at normal speed then slowing it down to 1/4 speed and, finally, I froze the video and moved it along at 1 frame at a time. Didn't see it. If you were to post a frame with an arrow added, I'd give it another look.

Sure, I've marked both objects with an arrow in this frame:

Thanks for that effort. I froze the frame at 0:48 which is where the light spot appears and I must say, your vision is better than mine. But I'm not going to call it a UFO companion. There is clarity everywhere but the light spot has no visible detail or shape. I think that light spot was created by the camera's optics. I rocked 3 frames back and forth: 0:47, 0:48 and 0:49 and it's visible only on 0:48.

No problem. Thanks for taking the time to look.

It's also visible in at least one other frame, but I struggle to pause it at the right time using YT. Are you downloading the footage somehow, or using a tool/tools to look at individual frames?

I'm not convinced it's an optical artifact. It certainly doesn't behave like a ghost/ghosting (what many mistakenly refer to as "flare" or "lens flare"). Not being an optics designer/expert I can't say for sure that optics can be ruled out altogether however.

If my PC's Windows Media Player had slow motion or frame by frame advancement I would download YouTube videos. What I do is change the videos' speed from Normal to 1/4 speed which allows me to freeze a frame better especially if the video's owner shows it in slow motion. I also put the cursor on the time played bar at the bottom and just edge it along backward or forward. Or I'll freeze the video and move it along with the kb's right or left arrow. Because I've been doing that for a long time sometimes I land on the desired frame. And YouTube doesn't allow magnification of its page, if I need to I take a screen shot and blow up the image with my Logitech keyboard which has a zoom button that goes up to 500X, but so does Windows Media Player.

a reply to: Lathroper

Try Avidemux, it's free. It's what I use.

a reply to: Lathroper

Thanks for the suggestions. It's actually the downloading bit I'm stuck on. I know there used to be a way to download footage from YT, but I've become a lot more cautious about where I go on the interweb recently due to all the threats out there. What would you recommend?