Exellent UFO footage out of Utah taken in 2016 just now posted Clear What do you think ATS?

a reply to: loam

Don't you think an owl would be sharper in the footage?

I am unconvinced this is any kind of bird...

BT

a reply to: beetee

At 60fps an owl would be crystal clear.

a reply to: vimanaboy

Yeah, I would thinks so too...

I'll preface by stating I'm not an expert in modern CGI but have seen plenty of footage pushed as real that were obvious hoaxes.

To me I am really impressed with the motion blur, This is difficult to get right even with professional CGI as you'd see on TV.

Remember, If we never saw fighter jets, The footage that someone posted as fighter jets flying low would easily have been called CGI if we never saw it, The craft in question could've been a small scout or drone ship, The point brought up on why it would need to bank is a fair one but for all we know this has more to do with scanning the environment or other things we couldn't conceive.

If it is indeed real footage, We can assume from the footage that it definitely uses some exotic propulsion methods that negate any atmospheric effects because it's clearly moving at high velocity and if that's the case it must at a minimum be a good sized object otherwise it would've been imperceivable will current optics like a bullet flying by.

I also rule out that it's a bird due to the high speed and an insect is more likely but considering the distance this is unlikely, It appears too large, It's too fast to be even a race drone, It also doesn't seem to show flapping wings and looks more like a pebble much like a pebble that gets picked up by a truck tire and propelled at your windshield.

If this is CGI it's damn good, I'm prepared to say this is more than likely real footage and I've seen similar objects captured by others, Including some Area-51 explorers who don't seem to have CGI know how.

Specificallty I'll say this is a drone... An exotic drone with exotic propulsion... Perhaps advanced US Gov't tech or ET.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Did not the military just release footage of F18 chasing one? quickly you forget.

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: MrSporkster

originally posted by: rejectHow close is this to the Sherman/skinwalker ranch?

More than 4 hours away.

How long if you were travelling 11k MPH? : )

Just over 1 minute, depending if you stop for coffee or not

Triple post

Here is some more analysis of the video using parallax and some size estimation.

originally posted by: beetee
Here is some more analysis of the video using parallax and some size estimation.

Hmm I’m going back and forth on this one to play devil’s advocate @ 8:40 an estimate of speed is given at 109mph if they object is 160’ feet away, if we fudge are speed numbers up a bit it could be a possibility that the owl theory could work in theory. To make the math work out the drone would have to be going 60mph+ (conceivably with a tail wind to reach said speed) and the owl was traveling 40+mph you could get to the 109mph taking away a 10% fudge factor in the speed estimation. Now a quick google of owl flight speeds does indeed show that some owls can reach 40mph in bursts (then again if then drone had a tail wind to make it to 60 then the owl would be working against the wind) I’m still very much out on this one but so far 3 possibilities seem viable, the previously mentioned owl, CGI, or genuinely something interesting (whether that be of eartlhly origin or not).not adding much but my thoughts so far anyway.

ETA- After a few more minutes of googling it appears this model’s rated top speed from the manufacturer is 49mph in a 0 mind condition, now as has been mentioned before this speed may be software limited or it might be a physical limit for the power/weight so given a 11mph tail wind it could just touch our 60mph threshold. I still think this would be a best case scenario and the flapping of wings are not visible but the numbers could be in the realm of reason.
www.dji.com...

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Nice work.

I managed to find the location on Google Earth, and I estimate the distance to the utility pole is at least 300m at the moment the phenomenon appears. Now a utility pole is usually around 10 m tall.

Using this information you can see if you can find a part of the video where the "bird" looks natural in relation to the pole and time how long it takes to go past the drone.

I have been trying this, and have ended up with either ridiculous midget falcons (or owls) or silly speeds for any kind of bird.

Even if the pole is only 100 meters distant (1/3 of what I estimate the actual distance is) and the bird is a minuscule member of its species, I think we are going to struggle to conclude that this is any kind of bird.

If you want to look at it yourself in google earth these are the coordinates from the Meta Data:

38 deg 15' 55.59" N, 112 deg 36' 44.11" W

I love birds, but I am not buying the bird explanation for this. CGI, perhaps, but not bird.

Cheers,

BT

Yep looks like a cylinder.

Seen vid or two of cylnder ufo in utah.

But why so small near camera if it could be seen so far away? Also it seemed to bend or stretch while banking.

Secret earth hugging drone perhaps. Sure be handy to have.

Movie folks, with drone, 2 year delay....fishy.


a reply to: vimanaboy

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: beetee
Here is some more analysis of the video using parallax and some size estimation.

@ 8:40 an estimate of speed is given at 109mph if they object is 160’ feet away

The video doesn't say it travels at 109 mph. He says if it were a bug then the speed would have to be 109 mph and there are no bugs capable of flying at that speed. His video proves it's not a bug. He goes on to say he believes based on his calculations of size of the object and distance traveled the speed is in excess of 9,000 mph.

As far as people claiming this is a bird I disagree. I Googled snowy owls and other birds in flight and none of them move at this speed or in a straight line trajectory as what is captured in this video. They don't look even remotely similar to the object captured in this footage.

Additionally, snowy owls are so rare in Utah most bird watchers in Utah doubt they ever make that far south considering the only breeding population in the US is located in Alaska.

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: beetee
Here is some more analysis of the video using parallax and some size estimation.

@ 8:40 an estimate of speed is given at 109mph if they object is 160’ feet away

The video doesn't say it travels at 109 mph. He says if it were a bug then the speed would have to be 109 mph and there are no bugs capable of flying at that speed. His video proves it's not a bug. He goes on to say he believes based on his calculations of size of the object and distance traveled the speed is in excess of 9,000 mph.

As far as people claiming this is a bird I disagree. I Googled snowy owls and other birds in flight and none of them move at this speed or in a straight line trajectory as what is captured in this video. They don't look even remotely similar to the object captured in this footage.

Additionally, snowy owls are so rare in Utah most bird watchers in Utah doubt they ever make that far south considering the only breeding population in the US is located in Alaska.

That’s not how I interpreted the analysis, what I’m getting out of it is he’s estimating that the object can be no closer than 160’ from the camera and if it is that distance the speed would be 109mph, if it’s the size that he’s theorizing then you get to the ludicrous speeds. I’m far from sold on it being a bird but there is a very small chance and after doing a bit of research I came to the conclusion that in theory it could be a bird/owl, I’m not calling it that and was just sharing my findings after pondering it for a bit, I’m not trying to sway anyone’s opinion. I could be reading the video wrong but after watching it several times I still come away with my initial interpretation, could very well be mistaken.

ETA-Also although a bug can not reach that high of a speed you have to bear in mind that the camera is not fixed the drone is moving toward the object in question so in theory if the drone in question could fly at 75mph (not at all saying it can, just that you have to keep in mind that the top speed of the object also has to take into account the speed of the drone) a bug could could produce a closing speed of 110mph when including the drone’s speed.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

You should go back and re-watch and read his comments. He's very clear in what he is saying. He is proving it is not an insect and his comments about speed and the measurements he takes based off of the size of the drone's arms (which are known values) and how he triangulates location he is able to calculate the theoretical speed IF it were an insect. Because his math is correct he proves that it cannot be an insect due to the calculated high speed.

The drone that shot that footage is moving forward about 1-2 kts so while I understand what you are saying regarding closing speed making it appear as if the approaching object is traveling faster in this case the speed of the drone is negligible.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: BigDave-AR

You should go back and re-watch and read his comments. He's very clear in what he is saying. He is proving it is not an insect and his comments about speed and the measurements he takes based off of the size of the drone's arms (which are known values) and how he triangulates location he is able to calculate the theoretical speed IF it were an insect. Because his math is correct he proves that it cannot be an insect due to the calculated high speed.

The drone that shot that footage is moving forward about 1-2 kts so while I understand what you are saying regarding closing speed making it appear as if the approaching object is traveling faster in this case the speed of the drone is negligible.

I’m not sure about your speed estimate there, looks to be moving at a considebly faster pace than 1-2 knots, in the comments the author of the analysis video has estimated the speed of the drone to be 28mph (24kts), while not nearly the speed needed to make the bird theory likely it’s still a a good bit faster than your estimate.

You are also correct that I failed to include the drone speed. It is actually more than I had initially thought as it is traveling 41ft per second or about 28.5mph. I should have included this as it matters. but it's not enough to change the outcome. You clearly have a great mind for this. Check this out on r/UFOs on reddit. It's easier to have a conversation. Best!

a reply to: Lagomorphe

is very suspicious. the angle of the object, the height was perfect...too perfect and....no sound...

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Taken in 2016 ? just now posted on u tube why just now dunno but clear and absolutely great in Bever 2hour north of Nevada.
3.5 miles in a second fast and clear .

What do you think?

its a fu*&cken drone. jet fighters can top mach 3. That thing didn't even break the sound barrier. How fast was that thing going? The camera isn't obviously a high speed camera. so the object must have been flying pretty slow. I call BS. If you going to fake something at least do a good job and a decent story. We are open minded but not fools.

originally posted by: HMaximilian
a reply to: Lagomorphe

is very suspicious. the angle of the object, the height was perfect...too perfect and....no sound...

Drone video never captures sound because all you would hear would be something like the sound of a swarm of gargantuan hornets (the propellers).

Interesting skeptical comments by Marc Dantonio posted to the video analysis, and a reply from Rob Woodus, who created it (from youtu.be...):

Marc Dantonio:

Did you see my analysis of this same video? You didnt mention the flexure of the wings as it turned and flew in to challenge the drone. This very obvious data cant be ignored as its crucial to answering what it is. I am not at all convinced that the video shows the ridgeline occluding the object. If the "bird" as I think it was, was flying left to right it could have been lost against the trees of the ridgeline only becoming visible as it became agitated and started turning, presenting a different aspect ratio to the light of the day. As high a resolution as the camera had it was still constrained by the pixels on the sensor and how well the diameter of its lens could provide resolution subject to the limits of camera gear. Same is true of telescopes. There we have Dawes limit which specifies how small an object can be realized and its fully dependent on the diameter of the object lens or mirror. Similar constraints exist for visual resolution in video cameras as well. I also think your magnified views illustrate that it IS a bird quite well. You can see it going in and out of view as its beginning to set up for the challenge run against the drone. Your assumption that its a sizeable aircraft moving over 9000 mph is incorrect in my view. Every aspect of the size and speed you are attempting to figure out is fully and utterly dependent on ONE assumption which is clearly not unassailable by any stretch: that the object is occluded by the ridgeline. I am saying that this is highly unlikely, certainly not showable even with your video here, and it was just not visible to the camera due to the limit of the resolution, as good as it was. Parallax actually does NOT prove anything in this case. The reason is that parallax depends on one of the movements being transverse to the motion of the other object. The idea is that you are trying to determine the DISTANCE to the other object which is what parallax does. In this video, both objects, one a drone the other a bird in my opinion, are closing on each other at speed. Parallax is not meant to determine the distance to the object this way because it depends on one object holding at roughly the same distance for BOTH measurements. I worked in parallax programs for a few years so not just giving an opinion here.

. In any case I enjoyed your take on it, I just think it missed the boat... err... bird.. in this case..



Rob Woodus:

Thanks for the time you took to reply. I believe you are correct about the camera being able to resolve the object so far away. I probably made a mistake showing my initial findings about the ridgeline because, although I still believe they are correct, it has colored what many might think I used to arrive at my conclusion. The real problem is the change in size over time. I think parallax shows the object to be far away and you agreed to as much by claiming it is hard for the camera to see (but the utility pole isn't hard to see and it's 1,075ft or .2 miles from camera). This is why the object is only a pixel when first noticed only to become 50+ pixels high in the frame a second later. That's a 5000% or 50 times increase in size in a second. (Try to find a jet fighter video of the jet going from a dot to a recognizable plane in only a second, I'd love to see it.) You are also correct that I failed to include the drone speed. It is actually more than I had initially thought as it is traveling 41ft per second or about 28.5mph. I should have included this as it matters. But it's not enough to change the outcome. You clearly have a great mind for this. Check this out on r/UFOs on reddit. It's easier to have a conversation. Best!