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

originally posted by: vimanaboy

Doesn't do much good to enhance a blur, really.

I might make a vid trying to show how the ufo seems to animate more smoothly than the rest of the vid...

It’s not crystal clear but I’m like 90% convinced of it, and that it is CGI...

Just adding the latest analysis I found. Don't think it adds much, but there ya go. Zero interest in debating the self-professed experts, here. Clearly those who want to believe it is exotic, do, while those who want to believe it is not do not. Very few seem to be ok with just being open-minded and interested, without having to have an opinion (that is really nothing more than an opinion).

The latest:

I am a little surprised ? Only limited interest in this,has anyone,anywhere? Thus far produced ANY evidence,this is CGI ? ,or a 'bug,falcon,owl,or feather caught in the wind (lol)'. Any genuine input,from those far far more knowledgeable than I, appreciated, as the extensive analysis,by others (as alluded to by the poster above) seems ? Somewhat compelling.thank you

a reply to: dimaggio13

yes it has been proven to be cgi.

When you slow down the video the UFO appears in every frame. This is impossible for an object flying that fast.

It should only appear in every fourth frame or so. The frame rate is too slow to pick up something that fast in every frame.

It is against the laws of physics.

originally posted by: booyakasha
a reply to: dimaggio13

yes it has been proven to be cgi.

When you slow down the video the UFO appears in every frame. This is impossible for an object flying that fast.

It should only appear in every fourth frame or so. The frame rate is too slow to pick up something that fast in every frame.

It is against the laws of physics.

Can you please link to that info? I thought it looked like CGI immediately but when I slowed it down, I couldn't quite make it 100% clear that it really was CGI.

But your description is exactly what I thought it looked like, animating too smoothly, which would mean too many frames.

Link please?

a reply to: peacefulpete

go look at the raw footage. On you tube. The effect appears in every frame. GO then look at a 4k video of any fast moving object (lots on youtubes, bullets for instance) and note that the object appears in only a few frames spaced out with 'blank backgrounds' in between.

a reply to: booyakasha

Not saying it isn't cgi but I am curious how one can determine how fast the actual object/critter is moving?

One of the problems with footage such as this, although better than other clips out there, is that as long as size and distance is unknown we have no way of getting the speed right.

If you assume a size based on a theory of what it is, you can get a size range and a speed estimate, and extrapolate from there.

For instance if it is a gyrfalcon, you have a probable size range for the bird. You can then compare with the utility pole size, since the distance to that is roughly known, and get a upper and lower speed range by timing the "bird" to the drone.

This may exclude some things it cannot be, but not others (like a very small object close to the camera where there is no reference point).

But by saying "it supposedly goes as fast as a bullet but since it does not look like one it has to be fake" one makes an assumption about speed, then use that to prove fakery. This is very poor analysis at best or a deliberate straw man argument set up to discredit the film makers at worst.

What we should say is that if the object comes over the distant hill, then it would follow it is moving as fast or faster than a bullet, and since an object at that speed does not look like this in the frames, the assumption about where it comes from is probably wrong.

Out of curiosity, at what speed does an object appear in every frame like the video? That would give us an upper limit of what the speed might reasonably be.

While I am open to the possibility of a deliberate hoax, I think this argument far from proves that it is. Remember that the Nimitz video, which now most people have decided is probably real (whatever it is) was leaked to ATS long before it became famous, and what did we do? We judged it a hoax and cgi.

Most CGI I have seen does not show a blurred blob. I mean, what is the point? If you are going to spend the effort to hoax a video of something exotic, you would make sure there is no ambiguity about the exotic part at least. Who spends weeks and months creating a video so that people can say: "Look, he filmed a bug with his drone..."?

Thank you all,especially beetee,as when I very first saw this a few times,my mind went straight to the Nimitz footage,(personal favorite case).
Booyakasha,so is that,'it has been proved as CGI ?' or, 'In your opinion it's CGI' I am genuinely interested. Thany you

a reply to: dimaggio13

Yeah thats proof.

It is literally impossible for an object to appear in all the frames. It can't possibly happen with an object going that fast. Unless you have a magic camera, it's not ever going to happen.

I don't know what else to tell you.

a reply to: booyakasha

Yeah thats proof.

It is proof it cannot be travelling as fast as someone has claimed, not that it has to be cgi.

We should try to be accurate.

Booyakasha,Thank you for taking the time and trouble,then surely this needs to be in the Hoax section? If, as you say,it is patently and obviously CGI.As a genuine after thought,how much time,and man ~ women hours, would it take to create something like this? Just pondering,what the motive(s) are to deceive? Thank you

originally posted by: dimaggio13
Booyakasha,Thank you for taking the time and trouble,then surely this needs to be in the Hoax section? If, as you say,it is patently and obviously CGI.As a genuine after thought,how much time,and man ~ women hours, would it take to create something like this? Just pondering,what the motive(s) are to deceive? Thank you

I think it's still an open case; this one person saying it's "proven" to be CGI, didn't give a link when asked (because I'm curious about this topic).

So no, I don't think it's proven.

I'll give it another look myself. I'm like 95% convinced it's CGI but I wasn't able to make it crystal clear yet. That is, I think the object is animating too smoothly, compared to the rest of the video. But I haven't been able to make that 100% conclusive yet. It's just my basic impression of the video so far.

If you look at the foreground (closest to the camera), you can see the landscape with choppy animation, but what's tricky about this, is that the background doesn't look as choppy as the foreground (since the foreground is going faster by the camera, than the background).

So I'm not sure how to tell for sure, what's going on...

Well the camera is operating at 60fps.
So if in every frame what are the Math?

originally posted by: dimaggio13
Thank you all,especially beetee,as when I very first saw this a few times,my mind went straight to the Nimitz footage,(personal favorite case).
Booyakasha,so is that,'it has been proved as CGI ?' or, 'In your opinion it's CGI' I am genuinely interested. Thany you

The person who did the analysis posted above also mentioned that, but he seems very confused which isn't surprising because the news media kept showing David Fravor talking about the UFO he saw next to some recording of a UFO that was not the UFO he saw. Of course a lot of people got confused by that and thought that was the UFO he's talking about. There is no recording of the UFO he saw. Fravor said he had a camera but he didn't think to turn it on to record what he saw. So once again all we have is a story of what Fravor saw with no photographic evidence.

The thing in the recording that always plays next to Fravor looks like it could be just an ordinary aircraft, as some people have pointed out, it's not what Fravor is describing.

originally posted by: dimaggio13
Booyakasha,Thank you for taking the time and trouble,then surely this needs to be in the Hoax section? If, as you say,it is patently and obviously CGI.As a genuine after thought,how much time,and man ~ women hours, would it take to create something like this? Just pondering,what the motive(s) are to deceive? Thank you

I don't know if it's CGI or not, but I'd like to ask anybody if they can link to more information about how fast moving objects end up missing from frames. Maybe that depends on the camera, type of shutter, and light levels, etc?

At the same analysis link above he said he already made a CGI version so it's not too hard to do, but he gives the impression it didn't take too long.

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
Well the camera is operating at 60fps.
So if in every frame what are the Math?

The video that comes to mind is the debunking of "Rods" which shows that on a slower frame rate camera what you get is motion blur with long streaks of a bug or bird flapping their wings, but then they show a high speed camera which is able to record the object without streaking. In both cases the moving object is in every frame, the main difference is the motion blur. The math isn't hard, if the slower frame rate captures the object for 1/25 second, then the length of the streak will be the distance the object traveled in that time, likewise in the high speed camera if exposure is .001 seconds, then there's not much motion blur since the object doesn't travel far in that time.

Rods debunked.


That gives a good idea of how frame rates affect motion blur but I don't understand why people are saying fast moving objects are missing from some frames unless that's a particular type of artifact from certain types of cameras or shutters or electronics. I'd like to see a link to an explanation of that or at least a link to some examples. In this example the moving object seems to appear in every frame, with either frame rate camera, but the amount of motion blur is different.

originally posted by: peacefulpete


I think it's still an open case; this one person saying it's "proven" to be CGI, didn't give a link when asked (because I'm curious about this topic).

He didn't give a link? A link? What type of link?

There is NO stinking "link", the link is what he told you about the frames. It's his personal analysis on why it's CGI. There Is no stinking link to give lol

Go gentle ! Lifetime lurker,only just joined ATS. A genuine request,to those who understand (fully) the following, ( I don't! ). Apparently, frames 64 and 65 of this footage,have within them,something significant? Gravitational Waves,Redshift,Gravitational Redshift? which left a certain analyser,saying W0W,this blows any notion of CGI,out of the window? Now I am confused!

Sorry I can't post the link,(copy and paste on this battered blackberry! Not happening. But,it is on YT, zero to do with me,found it by chance,and almost zero views,

If you search YT,input; 2016 Beaver UT Unidentified Aerial Vehicle Gravitational Redshift
It is only ten minutes,and absolutely nothing (at all) remotely like any of the previous hours of analysis.
Now going to watch it,in full for the third time,and see if I can get a further grasp of the explanation,but would really be interested, if, that analysis is of interest to previous posters in this thread? And your views. Thank You

a reply to: dimaggio13

He's saying that he has proof the object in the photo is using a gravitational field similar to the proposed alcubierre drive for propulsion due to "redshifting" in the frames in question. He says the redshift is from expanding time space behind the object. I think he says he detected no blue shift in front of the object.

To me it looks like he's instead seeing a ring or halo artifact around the object and is mistaking it for redshifting. Ring and halo artifacts are due to signals processing not expansion of timespace. What that means in regards to the object being either real and captured in the videography or cgi and added later is beyond my limited scope of signals processing knowledge. However, notice that the "redshift" is thicker and more intense where the object is brightest. That to me seems consistent with ring and halo artifacts. Its as if the contrast between a bright reflection or light source with the background creates a the ring or halo and the bigger the contrast the more pronounced the effect. This would not be in accord with a uniform expansion of time space behind the object.

I give the guy an A for effort though.

However there is a reason "ufos" are often seen as red in colour.

BASSPLYA, thank you, as a 'layman' I am intrigued,fully understand your explanation, and glad,you thought as well,' give the guy an A for effort' I hope others take a look as well,as that analysis, thought provoking at the very least. Thank you