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

And from Reddit r/UFOs reaction105:

This video attempts to determine the location of an object within a scene, using the motion of the camera and the resulting parallax of known objects at different depths as cues for the unknown object’s distance from camera. There are two reasons this will not work: The unknown object is moving. It’s position relative to the camera is changing and this will either counter or exaggerate the perceived parallax. With only 1 angle on the scene, this makes parallax an unreliable cue for depth, and 2) The unknown object does not pass behind or in front of any other objects in the scene, apart from the far mountain range. The tree line claim is better explained by the difficulty the camera sensor is having in resolving detail from noise and the small size of the object at that point in time. The most we can confidently say is that it is between the mountains and the camera. Later, the video attempts to determine the position of the drone relative to the operators and their vehicle. It asserts a field of view of 35 degrees, on an assumed 50mm lens. The DJI Inspire 1 has a diagonal FOV of 94 degrees, a horizontal FOV of 82 degrees, on a 20mm lens. All the resulting distance, real world size, and pixel size equivalent measurements are therefore wrong. (As an aside, though it is already wrong: the video also asserts a distance of ~12" from camera to motor arm. The Inspire has a forward mounted (i.e not centered to the body) camera that can rotate 360 degrees, so I’m not sure we can tell if it is the far or near strut that swings into view. This would then seem to be another unfounded measurement). The analysis in this video is fundamentally flawed. Parallax of a moving object is unreliable, and the camera specs used are wrong. Other things the video fails to address: The top speed of the Inspire is around 80km/h, or 73ft/s. Even half that speed would have a significant effect on the perceived motion of something small and nearby. The video does not explain the lack of atmospheric perspective on the object when it is claimed to be 2-3 miles away, despite the mountainside it is allegedly travelling down and over displaying soft details, low contrast, and blue shifted colour - useful depth cues. Our unknown object remains the same luminance and the same colour over the course of its journey.

Reply from rob_woodus:

This is excellent! Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'll address what I can. True the object "seems" to be moving and we can't say how, but only observe it relative to the surroundings. BUT, we have to consider all of the findings together and not individually. The object is tiny in the frame. You are indeed correct about parallax being unreliable (or I might say non-definitive.) But considered in conjunction with the other facts we can at least test some assumptions. That's what I have done. How far away would a bug have to be to appear that small in frame and then how close would it have to be to exit frame that large? Distance, plus size, plus parallax I think gives us something to consider. I have shown that it is POSSIBLE that the object disappears behind the ridgeline for 2 frames. This could be the result of other effects as you point out. (I have actually started to think it is flipping end-over-end.) Regardless, non-definitive. However, this is again where we must consider the size of the object and the change in size over time. I found that (by tracing the path) the object goes from 1 pixel (actually less than as it has trouble resolving) to over 50 pixels at exit. It's measurable in the frame, so I'm not guessing. That's a 5000% or 50 times increase in size in just under ONE SECOND. Consider the findings together not separately. The videographer could settle this one, but your assumption is not correct (I have reached out to Brian Hanley for this). The Inspire 1 could be purchased with the X5 camera that comes with a default lens, but is changeable with other micro four-thirds lenses. And there are indeed options for the range of 50mm (here's a 45mm on an Inspire 1). The field of view is definitely ~35deg as can easily be measured by landmarks in the frame and triangulation. Again, regardless I did not rely on either the focal length or the field-of-view in my findings. I showed in the video a scale drawing I have from DJI of the drone and the camera position. The forward positioning is important and helps determine that the camera is looking towards the rear where the control arm would be visible. Looking forward it is impossible for the camera to see the control arm. As such it is simple to measure the distance on the scale drawing from the center of the gimbal to the crossbar in view where it meets the rotor housing. It could certainly be off by some based on camera/lens dimensions, etc. But it's close enough to test assumptions, and that's what I did. Yes! You are definitely on to something here. I am aware that the drone speed should calculate into the findings and chose to negate it. However this speed can be calculated because we can determine (with landmarks) quite definitively where the drone is located. The movement of the drone is important as it is what causes the parallax. This should be revisited, but I do not believe the drone travels at it's top speed and therefore in one second it's distance covered is negligible. But that's opinion. Good catch! This has been answered by other comments, and I believe even your own comment mentions that the camera is having trouble resolving it. It's super tiny and fast as #, or large and distant and fast as #. Either one is fast and provable. Dude, thanks for challenging this video with this kind of logic. I really think it's what helps us get better. None of us can defeat CGI. But if it's real world then these conversations are vital. Cheers!

Link to 1st comment

Many more good skeptical comments and replies on the thread over at r/UFOs - too many to copy/paste here.

a reply to: vimanaboy

This also means the guy who did the analysis had one of the parameters wrong for his calculations, not sure how much difference it would make but he was going off an assumed 50mm lens.

ETA- Yeah should have continued reading that was already stated in the wall of text lol.

Looks like a cg object following a spline path...

Convenient that it pops (literally) in to view and although it seems to pass the camera there's no detail at all..All speed blurred out..

Handy....

Also the object lighting does not match...

a reply to: TheJesuit

3.5 miles in a second fast and clear . What do you think?

Um no

Not clear at all.

Logic would say its clearly moved only a few meters and is very small, insect size.

a reply to: vimanaboy



youtu.be...

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?

Looks like CGI to me... too smooth and too perfect and all that...

Plus the perfect angle, and a dramatic 3D movement that seems exactly like someone WOULD make CGI for a TV show or something.

(Or I'm wrong and it's just amazing footage that I'm not appreciating lol.)

Oh shoot I just realized that the movement is exactly the same as...

The very end of the ending of Sonic 2, lol.

Just a coincidence... Or it just shows that it's a typical human imagination of a perfect 3D zooming effect lol.

Also is it just my eyes, or is the UFO animating more smoothly and fluidly... than the animation of the environment passing by. Which seems to be animating more choppy than the UFO, I think?

originally posted by: Imagewerx
Unless I'm looking in the wrong place,I don't see any shadow from the object.The sun would be top right in the video footage from the position of the shadows from the trees in the foreground.Even at that speed if it is real,I'd expect to be able to see the shadow from it somewhere in the video.

You're not gonna find a shadow from that angle with that speed and the clouds over the sun.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: TheJesuit

3.5 miles in a second fast and clear . What do you think?

Um no

Not clear at all.

Logic would say its clearly moved only a few meters and is very small, insect size.

What? It was flying several feet over the tops of trees and came from the valley in the mountain.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: TheJesuit

3.5 miles in a second fast and clear . What do you think?

Um no

Not clear at all.

Logic would say its clearly moved only a few meters and is very small, insect size.

What? It was flying several feet over the tops of trees and came from the valley in the mountain.

However, If you are serious, then...... yeah sure, if you say so.

New interview with the videographer, including lens and camera info:

All the people saying bug or bird, are you actually serious!! It it obviously not a bug or a bird! This is what annoys the hell out of me regarding debunking beliefs! Dont you guys know that you are just as bad as the ET believers!?

If anything, it is CGI, but too he honest, we will never know because CGI is so damn good now!

But bugs and birds lololol

Here's some great in depth on the Utah footage maybe it will determine the authenticity of this footage more clearly. .

Well, I've been waiting to come up with a reply to this interesting video.
I've watched the analysis video aswell, which does a good job imho
But I just can't make up my mind as to what this is or isn't. The quality is very good, it looks so unreal for what it is. It's either fake or the real deal, no natural explanation
So I don't know what real ufos look like when they zip by a 4k camera drone.... Who does?
It's easy to call fake when it looks too perfect. I'm confused

While that video analysis is well-executed and the math does make sense at certain levels, do not be confused by facts in the analysis. The video itself is really all we need to debunk it.

The flight path--especially how the 'craft' banks--looks like CGI.

Clue number 2: moreover, if it's an actual object as large as claimed, and moving as fast as claimed, it would displace atmospheric gas molecules; it would create a pressure wave and ground effect flying that low. And we'd be able to hear it.

Even if a craft like this had no high-velocity exhaust to provide thrust, the pressure wave would still exist. The fact that it raises no dust over a *dry desert* and moves no vegetation is enough proof to convince me it's fake.

I know the naysayers will claim these so-called 'advanced alien thrust technologies' have a weird way of not disturbing the air around them that we don't yet understand (it's magnets! It's a turboencabulator!), but I'm not buying it.

Clue number 3: consider also the common argument that these craft operate outside of the rules--as we understand them--of gravity, Newton's Laws, and aerodynamics. If this is the case here, there would be no reason for the 'craft' to bank as it turns to change heading. If the bank is in fact necessary for lift-vector control of direction of flight, then the 'craft' would create a pressure wave and ground effect.

Which it does not.

There's probably more, but this is enough proof for me to wave this one off.

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

I read your post as the inverse of faith in the exotic nature of what is seen on the video. You have not established any sort of proof that it is not, you have essentially asserted your belief that it is not.

1) there is no evidence or proof that it is CGI (nor proof that it is NOT)
2) if we are dealing with exotic propulsion technology there is more than enough theoretical basis for the possibility that it would not use an engine based on action/reaction or displace air.
3) another assumption on your part. I get the logic, but that doesn't mean that you understand what is actually happening IF it is a craft.

I'm definitely interested in concrete evidence that the thing is faked. I don't see that in your post.

And what have we learned?

Nuthin'.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Speak for yourself there were some interesting MWAMP relative path dicussions on some of those links.