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

originally posted by: Dr UAE
my only take on this clip is that this thing doesn't cast any shadow on the ground, am I wrong?

I mentioned that a couple of pages ago but didn't get any response to it.

a reply to: InTheLight

Not for HD usually can set to 30 or 60fps.

Dr UAE

You'd be lucky to see a shadow at that speed and the angle/height of the drone.

originally posted by: Imagewerx

originally posted by: Dr UAE
my only take on this clip is that this thing doesn't cast any shadow on the ground, am I wrong?

I mentioned that a couple of pages ago but didn't get any response to it.

I believe there was one response which mentioned that the object was inter-dimensional, therefore may have absorbed or scattered the light thereby causing no shadow. Or it may have been anti-gravity causing light distortion, something like that. Would craft with cloaking technology cast a shadow?

And so, ya. Forget about answering the question. Just what is real? When answering the question what is a real video may be out of our grasp. Just more reasons why the only thing that UFOs on video prove, or will ever likely prove, is that UFO videos exist.

It doesn't matter what people think is "real" or not. Something is what it is. We're looking for that thing that isn't of this Earth, or perhaps something of this earth not created by humans, beyond our understanding. Why are even single videos important? Take this video - let's just say this is the first of a dozen videos of this object in Utah. Different people, different locations, same object. Then this video becomes a lot more important. Videos with multiple witnesses (or multiple videos) could be the tipping point for investigations. If video was as prevalent as it is now, when the Phoenix Lights occurred, maybe the wold would be thinking about UFOs completely different right now.

Point is ignoring videos or pictures because it -could- be a hoaxer, or fake, or lanterns or whatever, isn't the right way to approach UFOs. Must be stalwart and stick with it. For dozens of years if necessary. The older sightings should still be looked at, and all new should be studied meticulously. Regardless, "real" isn't subjective. If it's CGI, then it is. If it's mistaken identity, then it is. If it's a UFO from planet whazzit in the wherever system, then.. it is. We may not have the tools to come to this conclusion yet, but we may in the near future.

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: InTheLight

Not for HD usually can set to 30 or 60fps.

Dr UAE

You'd be lucky to see a shadow at that speed and the angle/height of the drone.

Normally 30 then for basically a still shot video. 60fps seems to be selected for more 'creative' editing.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Imagewerx

originally posted by: Dr UAE
my only take on this clip is that this thing doesn't cast any shadow on the ground, am I wrong?

I mentioned that a couple of pages ago but didn't get any response to it.

I believe there was one response which mentioned that the object was inter-dimensional, therefore may have absorbed or scattered the light thereby causing no shadow. Or it may have been anti-gravity causing light distortion, something like that. Would craft with cloaking technology cast a shadow?

Or we could just apply Occam's Razor here and assume that as with 99.99% of UFO videos,this is either fake (CGI) or something very mundane and down-to-earth.
Yes it would be cool as hell if it really was possible to optically cloak a flying machine,fold space,travel anywhere in the universe with a spore drive or travel through wormholes using a stargate.But as this is still only in the realm of science fiction,I'd say it's most likely a blurred bird,or a 'blurd'.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: InTheLight

Not for HD usually can set to 30 or 60fps.

Dr UAE

You'd be lucky to see a shadow at that speed and the angle/height of the drone.

Normally 30 then for basically a still shot video. 60fps seems to be selected for more 'creative' editing.

Standard NTfS is 60hz yes you can select to only record in 30fps but that would be less common.

a reply to: Imagewerx

there's a bird (black one) later in that video. also blurred, also moves fast, but nowhere near that fast, and nowhere near such path. oh, and it isn't that blurry, because it's much slower.

as for the raw footage, if it's CGI, it's nicely done. i don't think it's a CGI though. there's a lot of crap being told about it in places like reddit to "prove" it's fake, but for me the whole movement actually looks real. it's not as simple as a 2D path - height above ground remains constant, scale changes accordingly, movement speed across the screen changes accordingly - there are simply no obvious errors. someone would have to create a 3D terrain model and motion track the object in 3D space, relative to the camera. location isn't a secret (raw video contains gps coordinates), so one could recreate the terrain based on available maps and match it with camera movement. for a professional, it isn't hard at all - but it's still a lot of work for roughly a second of a "blurred white thing" footage.

the simplest explanation in this case is UFO, unless one thinks that the existence of technology far beyond official capabilities of our civilization is impossible - but then, this isn't a forum for such people.

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

well then I must have been wrong, still waiting for a real expert to analyse the video

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: InTheLight

Not for HD usually can set to 30 or 60fps.

Dr UAE

You'd be lucky to see a shadow at that speed and the angle/height of the drone.

Normally 30 then for basically a still shot video. 60fps seems to be selected for more 'creative' editing.

Standard NTfS is 60hz yes you can select to only record in 30fps but that would be less common.

Then my next question is was it shot and played back at 60fpm, or was it shot at a lower fpm then played back at higher fpm?

Pinned by brian hanley
brian hanley
1 day ago
Today, we have officially released the RAW FOOTAGE, which is now available for you to download and scrutinize yourself. Many have claimed that this is CGI, but as you'll see in our latest video, the UAP sighting was not edited in any way: www.youtube.com...

It may still be hard for some to believe that what we have here is genuine, given the quality is so remarkable. But that's what makes this sighting perhaps the most important and interesting in recent memory.

This is a new post on the Youtube page.
Wow

The RAW footage still seems odd, the motion appears choppy and the clouds don't seem to be moving fast enough and motion blur can be created fairly easily.

a reply to: InTheLight

I did alot of after effects but to reproduce something smooth like that with all shadowing and light direction and even the matching colorization of the surrounding area is very tricky not to see your own fakery.

The frame rate losses can be either a render problem or frame rates were set to 29 and not higher making the craft faster as the frame rates were set.

As it also be just the trick to make it work?

Not saying it isn't possible, but multiple angle shots from different sources and camera's make it more interesting

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
a reply to: Thefrogsdaughter

sounds like it didn't disappear but you had your memory altered. you could've been taken, your child removed from your body, then you were left back in the same spot with no memory of the event. the moment you regained consciousness, the UFO was gone.

did you consider hypnotic regression?


a reply to: facedye

"attributed"? it's just a tag to get attention from people searching for stuff related to him. i wouldn't read too much into it.

mm, maybe. however, i don't think it's too much to read into this regarding the relation. if this footage has been around since 2016, they've certainly had the opportunity to float it to other people - i certainly wouldn't completely keep this to myself.

Elizondo and others at NASA are seemingly trying to express that this phenomenon has some legitimacy. that NYT article is HEFTY to say the least, and alludes to a drip of information like this over time at their insistence. imo, it's reasonable given the above that there could have been some insistence here as well.

Not much difference with the two "RAW" versions.
Here's a 10% Speed version of just the relevant 2 seconds if you don't want to download the full 1.2Gb.

10% Speed Google Drive

a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Here's another version that is zoomed in, and slowed down as well...

Zoomed, slower, inverted

originally posted by: sighbul
a reply to: UKWO1Phot

Here's another version that is zoomed in, and slowed down as well...

Zoomed, slower, inverted

Holy crap, I count 3 - 4 objects sequentially in that video.

Wait.... Why won’t it let me pause the video in the middle?

Meh, swoops as if the object is following regular aerodynamics.

Doesn't look like anything earth shatterng.

UFO? Yes. Only because it is unidentified but it doesn't look like anything to write home about.

a reply to: KKLOCO

You should be able to just click in the video and that should pause/un-pause. Or you could just download it, and play it in your favorite video player too...

a reply to: TheJesuit

Anything happened to be seen in the Sky's over Utah is most likely U.S. Black Budget Tech . The Entire State is Spooked with them .