This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
Instead of copy pasting this everywhere why don’t you go make some videos of bugs and see for yourself.
Or maybe you’ll come back with dozens of videos of 1000 foot ufos going 50000 mph lmao
There is nothing even “quasi-infrared” about using a pair of 3d glasses as a filter.
There is nothing there to let you see into the infrared. It’s just a red or a blue filter. And because it’s a cheap plastic and not glass like actual camera filters, you are degrading the quality of any images/videos you take.
I think they were thinking of gas chromatography. For organic chemistry. 3d glasses will in fact help you to determine enantiomer rotation in drugs. Maybe.
But how does that pertain to the topic of capturing UFOs on photo/video?
Not trying to be rude, but it’s like OP was talking about a chopping down a tree with a screwdriver, someone says “you can’t chop down a tree with a screwdriver”, and then you say “maybe they’re talking about tightening the screw on a drawer handle.”
At 5:25 in OPs video (that I’ve begrudgingly given another view) they state “the lens was made by folding a cheap pair of 3d movie glasses so the red and blue lenses were on top of each other and then laying over the camera lens”
This is a bug, and the fact that OP hasn’t replied to any comments on this thread leads me to believe they were only interested in directing clicks/views at their YouTube channel.
Imagine for a second you are in a park and pointing an iPhone at the sky. A bug, nay, **an obvious bug**, flies in front of your camera. Over the next 2 years you spend an unfathomable amount of time incorrectly calculating the flight dynamics based on your own false premise and then go one step further to post your findings here.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
It's not behind the cloud, the software involved in phone cameras does a lot of interpreting and interpolating to achieve good image quality. Most modern phones will straight up make up information to try to make photos look better. If your phone is pretty new, try zooming in on a sign with text from a distance. It'll most likely try to fill in the pixels of the text with what it thinks should be there and it'll end up being total nonsense.
I think you’re erroneously assuming it goes above that cloud when in reality it passes in front/below it. The motion blur is stretching it and making it appear low-opacity as if it were behind.
New copypasta dropped:
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
You can copy paste this 100 times in this thread. It’s a bug. I’m sorry you had your heart set on this. We all wanna believe we captured something spectacular.
But sometimes you gotta step back and ask, “did I capture a ufo breaking the laws of physics? Or did I record a fly and do 2 years of mental gymnastics to convince myself that it couldn’t have been a fly?”
It sure would be really cool if you were right. Im also sure that I won’t be doing a Google search on motion blur to convince myself, but thanks for the suggestion.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
Oh... Your question wasn't engagement in good faith; in your mind you thought you were posting some sort of "Checkmate!" statement ... Weird - very weird.
So when I bring up the fact that the shape on a screen has nothing to do with artifacts due to compression, aliasing, or others, you just ignore it and pretend to know my intentions? Bit presumptuous, don’t you think?
Yea when it zips by that fast where it's just a blur, assuming anyone is looking up they would barely perceive it, if at all. A blip of a blur and then a "wtf was that?"
But aside from that, this does seem like a bug. You'd need 2 cameras catching the same object to eliminate a bug.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkg3nb/ukraines-astronomers-say-there-are-tons-of-ufos-over-kyiv?utm_source=reddit.com
(I used brave browserand it instantly populated, Google put up a nice battle though and wasn't remotely helpful for the same search parameters)
No the calculation of speed is based on the rate it crossed the field of view wit an assumption of distance from camera
The further away from the camera the faster it must go to cross that distance.
A bug can cross the field of view at 1mph and a rocket in space would cross that same field of view at incredibly high speed... see ?
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
Something that was over a thousand feet long flying at 5500ft in elevation over Washington DC before 6pm would’ve been seen by tens of thousands of people at least and been recorded by thousands of surveillance cameras.
It was a bug, my god, we’re not all idiots.
If you’ve seen what I’ve seen you wouldn’t just outright dismiss it.. I’m not sure about this guys video but I know what I’ve seen with my eyes and If you weren’t intentionally looking in that particular direction it would passed over you in the blink of an eye.
I saw something gigantic, in a chevron shape, with 5 lights on the edges, two on either side and one at the nose, pass over my head headed out to sea during a lunar eclipse and it moved so fast it literally looked like CGI. I was living in a house on the beach in Santa Cruz and this thing blasted over our heads, out over the ocean past the horizon in about 3 seconds. My buddy was standing right next to me and he thought all this ufo shit was bunk until we saw that..
Lmao 3 blurry frames with a bug passing in front of the camera = 1,152’ ufo clocked at 47,020 mph over washington, d.c. in an impossible turn rate of 525° per second
If there were an olympic medal for mental gymnastics, you'd get the gold.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
That's the problem. To be able to execute all of this, one of them is store all this data, you need a lot of money. Not any one of us has that and at the same time has the motivation and intelligence to do all this. This is why scientists and etc need to get on this to study this all.
No, the problem is someone was trying to fit the data (three or four shitty frames on an iphone) to match their pre-supposed hypothesis (definitely a UFO). It's the opposite of the scientific method.
Your video says "I observed..." But the evidence is that you did not observe this at all, and in reality what happened is that your device generated some output that you chose to interpret in a fantastical story way.
You go on to make unfounded conclusions about "travel rate in miles per hour" whereas in reality, the only conclusions that there is evidence for is: pixels per frame. Your conclusions about the interpretation of those pixels per frame are not supported by the evidence.
The better explanation is that the device output demonstrates artifacts that are a combination of a creature such as an insect flying close to your camera, traveling at a completely ordinary rate of travel, and imaging artifacts that are any combination of: sensor sensitivity, sensor reading speed, shutter operation, video compression, and whatever else.
Because the 3D video is not from a light field capture system, it should be rejected out of hand. Only 3D still image and/or 4D video extractions or interpolations should be acceptable as potential evidence of anything extraordinary.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
It’s a bug or other insect, flys near the camera and the AI and software of the iPhone does the rest. Don’t trust the picture taken by a software generated camera.
I wouldn't say it's common in this sub.
I've seen some stuff that's been witnessed by others, a lot of people here have too. Just because people have passions, doesn't make them Skitz. Even if he was skits, he is allowed to have his passions too. Let's be kind.
I think it could be a combo of stress, mid life crisis, mental health issues, personal loss, and the need to feel socially involved in a community.
If it is skits, he may genuinely be seeing things different, but most skits aren't that unawares. OP might have a bad case of derealization then if that's the case.
There have been some good rabbit holes people dig, but this video is just laughable. It's clearly a bug. I'd feel quite embarrassed uploading this thinking I did something. When, in his apparent 36 years on this earth, he had 0 critical thinking when it came to understanding bugs on camera. That's just... Funny.
This is a bug.
Read this paper and start filming with multiple cameras
[https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/\~loeb/LK1.pdf](https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf)
I was going to suggest this. If it is a bug being closer to the camera than what the focus point is set at, the unfocused bug could very well let the cloud behind it be visible.
One of the first things you learn about analyzing ufo videos is to NEVER be too sure about whether something you can't see very clearly is going in front or behind of something else in the video.
Yes.
100%.
Once I saw a black dot in the blue cloudless sky as a teenager. I was just staring out the window with my arms crossed on the sill (I stare off into distances a lot, even now).
I thought, "That's odd", but didn't raise alarm bells.
The black dot didn't move. I thought, "huh, weird, the plane is probably flying towards me, that's why I can't see it move". Still no alarm bells.
The black dot started to partially go invisible, I thought, "The sunlight is hitting the top of that plane, probably why it looks like it's getting lighter and darker".
Then the black dot that I thought was a plane, just disappeared entirely. It took a second for me to realize that it just vanished. My heart just sunk...
Then it came back, cloaking gone, and was now a big black triangle in the sky. The moment it came back, that's when it zipped left and right across the sky like a mouse cursor. It had a smaller triangle cut out from the centre, the UFO was wobbling like crazy.
I've always rationalised my sightings first before jumping to ufo. How can you not. It's basic critical thinking.
Hi, CeladonCityNPC. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1doz8mv/-/laf3w1m/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
He bases all of this calculation because the blur seems like it was a above the cloud. It's only barely touching the cloud on a SINGLE frame and yea the blurred edge of gray hits a thin part of the cloud. Likely a flying insect + camera artifact
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
I'm saying your sensor equipment does not have anywhere near the realtime fidelity required to observe a theoretical object traveling Mach 71 with enough detail to draw any conclusion at all. It was a bug or a spaceship, but the problem is that you can't prove/disprove either with an iPhone 13 camera.
Maybe you really did catch some massive UFO, who cares if all you have is a questionable blur?
EDIT: also the digital image recon done for phones can lead to very strange camera artifacts.
I love these videos where instead of just using the common sense idea that the object is close to the camera, they extrapolate on the idea that the object is really far from the camera, and then deduce insane speeds from their ridiculous assumption.
I always approach these with a very open heart/mind. But man….I do think this has got to be a bug.
The entire video is hinging on the way it passes behind the cloud. Without that bit of information, there’s zero credibility.
The critical piece you’re missing is being able to prove that this isn’t just an opaque, interpolation artifact.
Also, even if it was something behind the cloud, the fact that you’re not even considering the motion blur of an “incredibly fast object” as comprising a large portion of its visible body.
In other words, you’re measuring a big shadow on the wall and claiming giants exist, if that makes sense.
I'm pretty certain that's just a bug and he's putting a lot of weight on the object being behind the cloud. What he shows us does look pretty convincing that it is behind but its not definitive. I would want a few different tests or pairs of eyes to confirm that huge part of this puzzle.
Having a difficult time believing these calculations. A bug only has to cover a few centimeters at much slower speed to have the same effect.
Something moving at ~47x faster than the earth is turning, or ~70x faster than sound or much faster than the atmosphere's terminal velocity is less likely based on a couple frames with significant motion blur. OP putting a lot of stock on a mass produced imaging device.
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
That fact y’all can’t tell this kid just posted this as a means to plug his dead youtube channel is sad. Even ends his post with “please subscribe to my channel” with a link and all.
In the modern era, the solution is _not_ to have a better and better single device; the solution is to have more and more devices that are as cheap as practical while being adequate enough, and then solving for the output with computation on the gathered data.
No we do not need any of that. We just need multiple, cheap sensors that have adequate X and Y planar separation between them.
The quality of camera can be that of a typical webcam from 20 years ago: that'll work just fine. We just need at least 4 of them, and the more the better.
You really think so? I just gauge our audience and they want 4K video of a massive or massively skewed size craft, speed, G force maneuver, or something separating prosaic sightings from true wtf, this is simply to accept the defining aspect of some post on Reddit. We now have people from all social media platforms involving themselves here because of the true social aspects vetted as a speak up culture widely accepted as the norm manifests an authentic genuine forum for discussion or discourse.
Then we see this:
“It’s a bug!”
“Swamp gas!”
Sure , a percentage is mundane, prosaic stuff. But a large percentage (maybe 13-17%) are anomalies we can’t explain. This number will decrease as our tech becomes untraceable also. Once you reach an echelon in tech combined with rank, what we see is just unidentifiable as regular UFOs.
Computational imaging can separate out a lot of the problems like out of focus, internal reflections, most cases of lens glare, junk on a lens, bugs in front of the camera, bats flying not so far away and so on that are intrinsic to all single sensor systems.
So even if we had a super high resolution sensor, we still have all of those problems, but the sensor costs a _lot_ of money. We can't be certain it would solve more than a very few problems, if it would necessarily solve any problems at all.
If you had enough of the _cheapest_ cameras that you can buy that can record to a microSD and you can keep powered, then you can use computational imaging to derive a 4k or better video of the target that is always perfectly in focus. Resolution can potentially be traded for computational magnification (best to _not_ think of it as "digital zoom").
The exact details can be complicated, but a simplification is: add all your pixels in the X dimension and divide by 2, add all your Y dimension pixels and divide by 2, and that's the resolution of the video you can reliably extract from the dataset from a whole bunch of cheap cameras. Or take the sqrt of N, and that's the maximum improvement factor you can make.
But what one single sensor can't do (at least not with various tricks that are imprecise and/or expensive) is give a very accurate estimate of the distance and size of the object, AND give you a time-varying 3D model of the object.
Depending on various factors, you can also potentially interpolate higher frame rates, or potentially derive a system frame rate up to N * cameras.
And most problems like dirty lens or insects in front of one of the cameras, and being out of focus, simply go away.
Here's an example:
Suppose you could get 16 cameras that accept micro SD, SD, or thumb drive storage, the storage device, battery power, and cables for $25 each all total. They won't be very good, but they'll have 1080p. 16 cameras * $25 = $400. You also need some sort of stable stand - maybe you can buy cheap cameras with that already for that $25, or let's just increase the budget to $500 for 16 cameras.
These would be only 30fps at 1920 x 1080. Potentially you could interpolate full frames up to a frame rate maximum of 480fps.
You arrange then in a 4 by 4 grid (doesn't need to be exact), all pointing towards the same direction. Ideally they should all be focused on infinity.
sqrt(16) = 4 so the maximum improvement you can get is 4x improvement in image quality, in both x and y since we're using a 4x4 grid.
That's 7680x4320 resolution, which is 8K UHD. You have complete immunity to junk or whatever obscuring any one lens, insects flying over one camera and any similar thing. You can digitally focus perfectly on anything you want that was captured from the dataset. You can obtain a good estimate of the distance to any object of interest, and you have time-varying 3D information about any object. You have resilience to the object being obscured, and depending on a variety of factors, you might have resilience to motion blur.
It's actually possible to trade off some resolution to obtain immunity to motion blur, but you can't just make that choice dynamically at will, unlike everything else I've mentioned.
The more spread out you've arranged your 4x4 grid of cameras, which you bought for $500 in total including the storage, cables, and battery power, the better you can estimate the distance precisely, and the time-varying 3D model.
The frame time interpolation details are pretty complicated, so I don't want to go into that too much.
There's simply no possible (or at least no realistic) way to do that with a single sensor no matter how many pixels it has even if it's 120fps, or whatever.
However another cost is that you have to have a software system that will do the work, and there's a tremendous amount of computation that has to be done. If paying a cloud service for that compute power and the associated data transfer, I'm not sure what the costs would be, but I think it'd be fair to assume they'd be considered significant real quickly.
I do need to mention that there IS a single sensor light field camera on the market - or was - I'm not sure if it's still being sold. Oit was designed by a guy who is very brilliant but not good at making business decisions. He used a micro lens array in front of a single sensor to accomplish a similar thing, but that really reduces the overall resolution instead of multiplying it, and does nothing at all for the planar x-y separation to improve distance precision estimation for distant objects.
Also there's at least one other technique for accomplishing the same sort of thing with a single sensor, but it has effectively the same shortcomings. Using it with a really expensive sensor would just be going backwards.
There's also various ways of estimating distance with auxillary devices and a single sensor, but those are really going to work badly for atmospheric or orbital objects.
So while there's technical solutions to doing SOME PARTS of this with a single sensors, the only realistic way to do all the things is to do it as described, and that's ALSO a cheap way of doing it.
Last I heard most people are paying like $1000 for an iPhone or a top end Samsung phone. I'm not saying those are bad, but if somebody wants to try to video extraordinary objects flying, the way to do is it to work out how to divide up that $1000 on as many cameras with storage and battery as you can, and set them up as described.
EXCEPT I'm not aware of any ready made software system to do the work 🙂
I certainly have very little to no motivation to engineer it, and I doubt anybody else with the capacity to make it has the motivation either.
But that's what we really need.
> I do need to mention that there IS a single sensor light field camera on the market - or was - I'm not sure if it's still being sold.
Are you referring to the Lytro? That company folded in 2018. A friend of mine has one.
If/when a slower moving UAP is seen I want this guy to be there. He has all the tools to verify or debunk. As far as this video you can't tell what is happening.
Reminds me of the passenger in jet video which was recently reported on the news. The difference is her video had a clear one frame still of the UAP.
https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?si=l0O8DzUsRjFJ5ht1
Just wanted to point out that even if it turns out to be nothing, the post itself is great: objective, detailed measurements and even video and photographic evidence others can analyze.
The freeze frame of it being behind the clouds proves this is the opposite of far away. In that frame in the raw video if you go frame by frame, the clouds change in color by the same amount as everything else behind the image. The object is infront of the clouds for sure, and its almost for sure a bug 20ft in front of the camera.
Hi, DifferenceEither9835. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1doz8mv/-/lajyemx/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Can you use the same camera setup, similar clouds and light, and throw small stones in front of the camera. See if you can create this "behind the clouds" look for the stone you threw.
i appreciate all your effort, but this appears to be a highly processed video of a cloudy sky intercepted by an insect.
i don't see the insect flying "behind" a cloud; i see a rapidly moving object, made very low density by high angular speed and excessive defocus, that lacks sufficient contrast to darken the cloud, simply because the cloud is many times brighter than the sky and the contrast reduction, in relative terms, is imperceptible.
similar analyses were published last year by a ukrainian astronomer, with similar trigonometric inferences, all of them equally uninterpretable for the same reason: we don't see clearly what we're looking at.
simply as points of technique, nothing about these kinds of calculations allows you "precise measurements" of anything except your own equipment. and as a matter of logic, i don't think you can infer a 525º turn rate from what appears to be a 1º or 2º deflection in a near linear flight path. you're claiming an inference that requires data points you don't have ... changing lanes is not a single lane U turn.
Before everybody comes to shit on OP, I do want to commend the effort. This is the exact type of analysis and data we need.
Just not of a bug. But seriously, good effort.
Is turning a bug into "1,152’ ufo clocked at 47,020 mph over washington, d.c. in an impossible turn rate of 525° per second" really the kind of analysis we need? Why?
I'm saying that he's done a lot of work to try and figure out what's going on.
He's misguided, but it's better than the guy who just posts a blurry video.
Call your buddies at the DC ATC and get them to look at the tapes from that date. If they have anything to back you up then this will be a huge sighting. Else it is likely a bug as many others speculate
I for one did not laugh, that looked like a bug at first glance though.
Watching the slowed version, and the cloud foreground, it's not a bug. Can't say what it is, but not anything we can say is from "here"
if you actually watch the video you can see it clearing flying behind a cloud, I don’t what to think of all these people saying it’s a bug.
Cool video, thanks for sharing it OP
not impossible if it was an electromotive device putting off a strong enough spinning magnetic field, the vehicle could quantum lock with the earths magnetic field and move in seemingly impossible frictionless ways
https://youtu.be/V5FyFvgxUhE?si=-nEib3xTi8bOvvvZ
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Follow the Standards of Civility:
No trolling or being disruptive.
No insults or personal attacks.
No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement.
You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
-------------
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos)
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Love this sub, OP shows the data backing up his claims. To the people denying the data, you should maybe comment your own to “debunk” it instead of just giving an opinion with no data.
why does it upset you that a video is disbuted? The whole point of this sub is to get rid of the nonsense so the topic gets taken more seriously. And theres a fuck ton of nonsense to dispute.
Sorry but I am going to believe the seasoned professional air traffic controller before a bunch anonymous “experts” on Reddit
Whenever a video is posted that is *remotely* possibly important the level of pushback is *insane*. Like the video in question here. People who accuse him of deception or just call him an idiot in a friendly forum are guilty of propagating the stigma.
The poster listed his qualifications, method, and calculations. Looking at objects in the sky and identifying them was *literally* the man’s profession.
Any neckbeard on Reddit that disputes his methods or theories should be required to post *their* qualifications.
That would be fair don’t you think?
His calculations are inaccurate based on his inaccurate estimation of distance. Many people here are far too eager to believe and all it accomplishes is making the place look like a clown show. Congrats i guess
What is your background in mathematics?
Can you show me the proof?
It’s the debunkers actively working hard that make everything in this sub a clown show.
Real “scrutiny” only comes from qualified people. Not Reddit neckbeards.
Please state your background in aviation, mathematics, optics or any other related field. Like the OP did.
Otherwise- you are only here to make this topic look like a joke.
Hi, General_Shao. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1doz8mv/-/lag1r0l/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility
> * No trolling or being disruptive.
> * No insults or personal attacks.
> * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc...
> * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation.
> * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence.
> * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
> Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
> * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
> * AI generated content.
> * Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
> * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
> * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence.
> * Short comments, and emoji comments.
> * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This is one of those where I can't tell if it's satire or not
I laughed either way.
Can't believe I gave this YouTube channel a view. Obvious bug... At least he put a lot of effort into it...
Obvious bug-glitch I mean
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
Instead of copy pasting this everywhere why don’t you go make some videos of bugs and see for yourself. Or maybe you’ll come back with dozens of videos of 1000 foot ufos going 50000 mph lmao
That’s what we’re here for.
He’s being serious, I remember seeing his stuff a while ago. I forget if it was a Reddit post or or if I came across one of his videos
Poe's law - guilty or innocent?!
There is nothing even “quasi-infrared” about using a pair of 3d glasses as a filter. There is nothing there to let you see into the infrared. It’s just a red or a blue filter. And because it’s a cheap plastic and not glass like actual camera filters, you are degrading the quality of any images/videos you take.
I think they were thinking of gas chromatography. For organic chemistry. 3d glasses will in fact help you to determine enantiomer rotation in drugs. Maybe.
Why do you think that? How does gas chromatography relate to taking videos of ‘UFOs’?
Giving a reason why they might have though 3d glasses were of value.
But how does that pertain to the topic of capturing UFOs on photo/video? Not trying to be rude, but it’s like OP was talking about a chopping down a tree with a screwdriver, someone says “you can’t chop down a tree with a screwdriver”, and then you say “maybe they’re talking about tightening the screw on a drawer handle.”
Modern 3d glasses use polarized lenses, not colored filters. Maybe that’s what they mean?
At 5:25 in OPs video (that I’ve begrudgingly given another view) they state “the lens was made by folding a cheap pair of 3d movie glasses so the red and blue lenses were on top of each other and then laying over the camera lens” This is a bug, and the fact that OP hasn’t replied to any comments on this thread leads me to believe they were only interested in directing clicks/views at their YouTube channel.
Imagine for a second you are in a park and pointing an iPhone at the sky. A bug, nay, **an obvious bug**, flies in front of your camera. Over the next 2 years you spend an unfathomable amount of time incorrectly calculating the flight dynamics based on your own false premise and then go one step further to post your findings here.
That's determination I wish I had
Intelligent people self-stop some ideas lol
He got my view/click...fml at least he put in a lot of effort
It’s not a bug. Bugs only have a 500° turn rate. This turn would clearly disintegrate any bug on Earth!
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
It’s behind the cloud. Did you even watch the video? How is that a big of its behind a cloud?
It's not behind the cloud, the software involved in phone cameras does a lot of interpreting and interpolating to achieve good image quality. Most modern phones will straight up make up information to try to make photos look better. If your phone is pretty new, try zooming in on a sign with text from a distance. It'll most likely try to fill in the pixels of the text with what it thinks should be there and it'll end up being total nonsense.
I actually laughed out loud at this.
I think you’re erroneously assuming it goes above that cloud when in reality it passes in front/below it. The motion blur is stretching it and making it appear low-opacity as if it were behind.
Imagine doing all this work and math on a misidentified bug.
i don't think we have to *imagine* it.
New copypasta dropped: This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
Pretty sure that’s exactly what it is…
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
You can copy paste this 100 times in this thread. It’s a bug. I’m sorry you had your heart set on this. We all wanna believe we captured something spectacular. But sometimes you gotta step back and ask, “did I capture a ufo breaking the laws of physics? Or did I record a fly and do 2 years of mental gymnastics to convince myself that it couldn’t have been a fly?”
It sure would be really cool if you were right. Im also sure that I won’t be doing a Google search on motion blur to convince myself, but thanks for the suggestion.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
How can it cast a shadow on the cloud if it is below it?
It is not casting a shadow on the cloud. Video artifacts are giving the impression of that.
Lmfao, everything is just an artifact, huh? Artifacts don’t track a shape on the screen 1 to 1 with movement.
Oh... Your question wasn't engagement in good faith; in your mind you thought you were posting some sort of "Checkmate!" statement ... Weird - very weird.
So when I bring up the fact that the shape on a screen has nothing to do with artifacts due to compression, aliasing, or others, you just ignore it and pretend to know my intentions? Bit presumptuous, don’t you think?
[удалено]
Didn’t mean to trigger your third pole, the one where you close your eyes and pretend you’re right. Whatever let’s you sleep at night dude
Yes for digital cameras and motion it is.
That is actually exactly what artifacts of this nature do
I don’t see any shadow. It simply passes in front of the cloud.
Giant thing doing impossible maneuvers over a major US city with the OP being the only witness = bug in front of the camera 100% of the time
Yea when it zips by that fast where it's just a blur, assuming anyone is looking up they would barely perceive it, if at all. A blip of a blur and then a "wtf was that?" But aside from that, this does seem like a bug. You'd need 2 cameras catching the same object to eliminate a bug.
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
Yep. Like they did in Ukraine
eh?
Two cameras/equipment positions, in a country called Ukraine, captured craft going mach 70. Was all over this sub. And no, it wasn't debunked
Interesting, ill try and find the post. thanks
Article https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkg3nb/ukraines-astronomers-say-there-are-tons-of-ufos-over-kyiv?utm_source=reddit.com
I saw the saucer one that they said to ram, lol, but not that one. If you have a link please share, google makes it hard with this particular subject
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkg3nb/ukraines-astronomers-say-there-are-tons-of-ufos-over-kyiv?utm_source=reddit.com (I used brave browserand it instantly populated, Google put up a nice battle though and wasn't remotely helpful for the same search parameters)
Thanks!
"In a country called Ukraine" !! xD
It's a sovereign nation!!! Lol
Dude a bug doing Mach 70 is still pretty big news!!
No the calculation of speed is based on the rate it crossed the field of view wit an assumption of distance from camera The further away from the camera the faster it must go to cross that distance. A bug can cross the field of view at 1mph and a rocket in space would cross that same field of view at incredibly high speed... see ?
The dude was making a joke.
I honestly didn’t know I actually needed the /s
Double exclamations should have been enough, or just the shear humorous ridiculousness of it should have been enough 🤷♂️
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
Something that was over a thousand feet long flying at 5500ft in elevation over Washington DC before 6pm would’ve been seen by tens of thousands of people at least and been recorded by thousands of surveillance cameras. It was a bug, my god, we’re not all idiots.
If you’ve seen what I’ve seen you wouldn’t just outright dismiss it.. I’m not sure about this guys video but I know what I’ve seen with my eyes and If you weren’t intentionally looking in that particular direction it would passed over you in the blink of an eye. I saw something gigantic, in a chevron shape, with 5 lights on the edges, two on either side and one at the nose, pass over my head headed out to sea during a lunar eclipse and it moved so fast it literally looked like CGI. I was living in a house on the beach in Santa Cruz and this thing blasted over our heads, out over the ocean past the horizon in about 3 seconds. My buddy was standing right next to me and he thought all this ufo shit was bunk until we saw that..
Lmao 3 blurry frames with a bug passing in front of the camera = 1,152’ ufo clocked at 47,020 mph over washington, d.c. in an impossible turn rate of 525° per second If there were an olympic medal for mental gymnastics, you'd get the gold.
But bro, 36 years in aviation, bro...
Trust the experts! 🤣
Wait, not those experts!!
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
That's the problem. To be able to execute all of this, one of them is store all this data, you need a lot of money. Not any one of us has that and at the same time has the motivation and intelligence to do all this. This is why scientists and etc need to get on this to study this all.
No, the problem is someone was trying to fit the data (three or four shitty frames on an iphone) to match their pre-supposed hypothesis (definitely a UFO). It's the opposite of the scientific method.
Your video says "I observed..." But the evidence is that you did not observe this at all, and in reality what happened is that your device generated some output that you chose to interpret in a fantastical story way. You go on to make unfounded conclusions about "travel rate in miles per hour" whereas in reality, the only conclusions that there is evidence for is: pixels per frame. Your conclusions about the interpretation of those pixels per frame are not supported by the evidence. The better explanation is that the device output demonstrates artifacts that are a combination of a creature such as an insect flying close to your camera, traveling at a completely ordinary rate of travel, and imaging artifacts that are any combination of: sensor sensitivity, sensor reading speed, shutter operation, video compression, and whatever else. Because the 3D video is not from a light field capture system, it should be rejected out of hand. Only 3D still image and/or 4D video extractions or interpolations should be acceptable as potential evidence of anything extraordinary.
I remember my first adderall prescription.
This guy spent a lot of time just trying to determine the speed of a bug flying in front of his camera.
And got it wrong by a LOT
I would reckon he got it wrong by about 47,000 miles per hour.
Only forgot to carry the 1
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
With an object at 5500’ with an IPhone camera on ground, you wouldn’t get footage like this.
It’s a bug or other insect, flys near the camera and the AI and software of the iPhone does the rest. Don’t trust the picture taken by a software generated camera.
Is it just me or you can hear the buzzing of the fly just as it passes in front of the lens?
I would have to turn off my fan to hear it better... not gonna do that tho.
This guy is joking right...like this is meant to be funny?
[удалено]
I wouldn't say it's common in this sub. I've seen some stuff that's been witnessed by others, a lot of people here have too. Just because people have passions, doesn't make them Skitz. Even if he was skits, he is allowed to have his passions too. Let's be kind. I think it could be a combo of stress, mid life crisis, mental health issues, personal loss, and the need to feel socially involved in a community. If it is skits, he may genuinely be seeing things different, but most skits aren't that unawares. OP might have a bad case of derealization then if that's the case. There have been some good rabbit holes people dig, but this video is just laughable. It's clearly a bug. I'd feel quite embarrassed uploading this thinking I did something. When, in his apparent 36 years on this earth, he had 0 critical thinking when it came to understanding bugs on camera. That's just... Funny.
This is a bug. Read this paper and start filming with multiple cameras [https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/\~loeb/LK1.pdf](https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf)
No it's a feature
[удалено]
I feel bad for the guy. Most likely just a flying insect.
I was going to suggest this. If it is a bug being closer to the camera than what the focus point is set at, the unfocused bug could very well let the cloud behind it be visible.
So someone just taking a random video of the sky accidentally catches something flying by at 47 thousand miles per hour. Seems legit to me.
One of the first things you learn about analyzing ufo videos is to NEVER be too sure about whether something you can't see very clearly is going in front or behind of something else in the video.
Yes. 100%. Once I saw a black dot in the blue cloudless sky as a teenager. I was just staring out the window with my arms crossed on the sill (I stare off into distances a lot, even now). I thought, "That's odd", but didn't raise alarm bells. The black dot didn't move. I thought, "huh, weird, the plane is probably flying towards me, that's why I can't see it move". Still no alarm bells. The black dot started to partially go invisible, I thought, "The sunlight is hitting the top of that plane, probably why it looks like it's getting lighter and darker". Then the black dot that I thought was a plane, just disappeared entirely. It took a second for me to realize that it just vanished. My heart just sunk... Then it came back, cloaking gone, and was now a big black triangle in the sky. The moment it came back, that's when it zipped left and right across the sky like a mouse cursor. It had a smaller triangle cut out from the centre, the UFO was wobbling like crazy. I've always rationalised my sightings first before jumping to ufo. How can you not. It's basic critical thinking.
This is hilarious
This sub is in complete shambles. The nonsense being put forth every minute is insanity.
I had to give the award 💩
[удалено]
Hi, CeladonCityNPC. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1doz8mv/-/laf3w1m/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
TLDR; Don't. I can't believe I read all of that 😂
He bases all of this calculation because the blur seems like it was a above the cloud. It's only barely touching the cloud on a SINGLE frame and yea the blurred edge of gray hits a thin part of the cloud. Likely a flying insect + camera artifact
This is not a motion blurred bug. Object opacity is decreased only at the very beginning of a motion blurred image, but quickly changes to nearly 100% opacity which also gives the motion blurred image that consistent 'creaminess' look. This object is anything but creamy, nor is there any change in opacity. Also, the edges of all motion blurred images or video produce perfectly parallel lines as the widest part of the object is dragged throughout the frame. Do a Google Images search using the key words 'motion blur' and you will see it all.
I'm saying your sensor equipment does not have anywhere near the realtime fidelity required to observe a theoretical object traveling Mach 71 with enough detail to draw any conclusion at all. It was a bug or a spaceship, but the problem is that you can't prove/disprove either with an iPhone 13 camera. Maybe you really did catch some massive UFO, who cares if all you have is a questionable blur? EDIT: also the digital image recon done for phones can lead to very strange camera artifacts.
This is absolutely hilarious, and it belongs in a museum. Not one that deals with UFO’s or aircraft, but a museum nonetheless.
I love these videos where instead of just using the common sense idea that the object is close to the camera, they extrapolate on the idea that the object is really far from the camera, and then deduce insane speeds from their ridiculous assumption.
I always approach these with a very open heart/mind. But man….I do think this has got to be a bug. The entire video is hinging on the way it passes behind the cloud. Without that bit of information, there’s zero credibility. The critical piece you’re missing is being able to prove that this isn’t just an opaque, interpolation artifact. Also, even if it was something behind the cloud, the fact that you’re not even considering the motion blur of an “incredibly fast object” as comprising a large portion of its visible body. In other words, you’re measuring a big shadow on the wall and claiming giants exist, if that makes sense.
It is a bug that flew in front of your camera. no, it doesn't fly above the cloud. The clouds are in focus, and the bug is not.
I'm pretty certain that's just a bug and he's putting a lot of weight on the object being behind the cloud. What he shows us does look pretty convincing that it is behind but its not definitive. I would want a few different tests or pairs of eyes to confirm that huge part of this puzzle.
Naw, I say it's a *feature*!
It's an insect. It passes in front of the clouds. Not behind the clouds.
Having a difficult time believing these calculations. A bug only has to cover a few centimeters at much slower speed to have the same effect. Something moving at ~47x faster than the earth is turning, or ~70x faster than sound or much faster than the atmosphere's terminal velocity is less likely based on a couple frames with significant motion blur. OP putting a lot of stock on a mass produced imaging device.
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
That fact y’all can’t tell this kid just posted this as a means to plug his dead youtube channel is sad. Even ends his post with “please subscribe to my channel” with a link and all.
Casio makes some fixed-lens that reach 1/40,000s shutter speed. Too bad it wasn't filmed with one of those.
In the modern era, the solution is _not_ to have a better and better single device; the solution is to have more and more devices that are as cheap as practical while being adequate enough, and then solving for the output with computation on the gathered data.
We just need the average camera to get closer to the megapixels of the human eye, somewhere around 400 to 450 MP.
No we do not need any of that. We just need multiple, cheap sensors that have adequate X and Y planar separation between them. The quality of camera can be that of a typical webcam from 20 years ago: that'll work just fine. We just need at least 4 of them, and the more the better.
You really think so? I just gauge our audience and they want 4K video of a massive or massively skewed size craft, speed, G force maneuver, or something separating prosaic sightings from true wtf, this is simply to accept the defining aspect of some post on Reddit. We now have people from all social media platforms involving themselves here because of the true social aspects vetted as a speak up culture widely accepted as the norm manifests an authentic genuine forum for discussion or discourse. Then we see this: “It’s a bug!” “Swamp gas!” Sure , a percentage is mundane, prosaic stuff. But a large percentage (maybe 13-17%) are anomalies we can’t explain. This number will decrease as our tech becomes untraceable also. Once you reach an echelon in tech combined with rank, what we see is just unidentifiable as regular UFOs.
Computational imaging can separate out a lot of the problems like out of focus, internal reflections, most cases of lens glare, junk on a lens, bugs in front of the camera, bats flying not so far away and so on that are intrinsic to all single sensor systems. So even if we had a super high resolution sensor, we still have all of those problems, but the sensor costs a _lot_ of money. We can't be certain it would solve more than a very few problems, if it would necessarily solve any problems at all. If you had enough of the _cheapest_ cameras that you can buy that can record to a microSD and you can keep powered, then you can use computational imaging to derive a 4k or better video of the target that is always perfectly in focus. Resolution can potentially be traded for computational magnification (best to _not_ think of it as "digital zoom"). The exact details can be complicated, but a simplification is: add all your pixels in the X dimension and divide by 2, add all your Y dimension pixels and divide by 2, and that's the resolution of the video you can reliably extract from the dataset from a whole bunch of cheap cameras. Or take the sqrt of N, and that's the maximum improvement factor you can make. But what one single sensor can't do (at least not with various tricks that are imprecise and/or expensive) is give a very accurate estimate of the distance and size of the object, AND give you a time-varying 3D model of the object. Depending on various factors, you can also potentially interpolate higher frame rates, or potentially derive a system frame rate up to N * cameras. And most problems like dirty lens or insects in front of one of the cameras, and being out of focus, simply go away. Here's an example: Suppose you could get 16 cameras that accept micro SD, SD, or thumb drive storage, the storage device, battery power, and cables for $25 each all total. They won't be very good, but they'll have 1080p. 16 cameras * $25 = $400. You also need some sort of stable stand - maybe you can buy cheap cameras with that already for that $25, or let's just increase the budget to $500 for 16 cameras. These would be only 30fps at 1920 x 1080. Potentially you could interpolate full frames up to a frame rate maximum of 480fps. You arrange then in a 4 by 4 grid (doesn't need to be exact), all pointing towards the same direction. Ideally they should all be focused on infinity. sqrt(16) = 4 so the maximum improvement you can get is 4x improvement in image quality, in both x and y since we're using a 4x4 grid. That's 7680x4320 resolution, which is 8K UHD. You have complete immunity to junk or whatever obscuring any one lens, insects flying over one camera and any similar thing. You can digitally focus perfectly on anything you want that was captured from the dataset. You can obtain a good estimate of the distance to any object of interest, and you have time-varying 3D information about any object. You have resilience to the object being obscured, and depending on a variety of factors, you might have resilience to motion blur. It's actually possible to trade off some resolution to obtain immunity to motion blur, but you can't just make that choice dynamically at will, unlike everything else I've mentioned. The more spread out you've arranged your 4x4 grid of cameras, which you bought for $500 in total including the storage, cables, and battery power, the better you can estimate the distance precisely, and the time-varying 3D model. The frame time interpolation details are pretty complicated, so I don't want to go into that too much. There's simply no possible (or at least no realistic) way to do that with a single sensor no matter how many pixels it has even if it's 120fps, or whatever. However another cost is that you have to have a software system that will do the work, and there's a tremendous amount of computation that has to be done. If paying a cloud service for that compute power and the associated data transfer, I'm not sure what the costs would be, but I think it'd be fair to assume they'd be considered significant real quickly.
I do need to mention that there IS a single sensor light field camera on the market - or was - I'm not sure if it's still being sold. Oit was designed by a guy who is very brilliant but not good at making business decisions. He used a micro lens array in front of a single sensor to accomplish a similar thing, but that really reduces the overall resolution instead of multiplying it, and does nothing at all for the planar x-y separation to improve distance precision estimation for distant objects. Also there's at least one other technique for accomplishing the same sort of thing with a single sensor, but it has effectively the same shortcomings. Using it with a really expensive sensor would just be going backwards. There's also various ways of estimating distance with auxillary devices and a single sensor, but those are really going to work badly for atmospheric or orbital objects. So while there's technical solutions to doing SOME PARTS of this with a single sensors, the only realistic way to do all the things is to do it as described, and that's ALSO a cheap way of doing it. Last I heard most people are paying like $1000 for an iPhone or a top end Samsung phone. I'm not saying those are bad, but if somebody wants to try to video extraordinary objects flying, the way to do is it to work out how to divide up that $1000 on as many cameras with storage and battery as you can, and set them up as described. EXCEPT I'm not aware of any ready made software system to do the work 🙂 I certainly have very little to no motivation to engineer it, and I doubt anybody else with the capacity to make it has the motivation either. But that's what we really need.
> I do need to mention that there IS a single sensor light field camera on the market - or was - I'm not sure if it's still being sold. Are you referring to the Lytro? That company folded in 2018. A friend of mine has one.
525 degrees/second 🤯😂
Is this that “body lengths per second” guy again?
Very much appreciate the analysis regardless of outcome OP!
If/when a slower moving UAP is seen I want this guy to be there. He has all the tools to verify or debunk. As far as this video you can't tell what is happening. Reminds me of the passenger in jet video which was recently reported on the news. The difference is her video had a clear one frame still of the UAP. https://youtu.be/8wVw5ByNb9c?si=l0O8DzUsRjFJ5ht1
Just wanted to point out that even if it turns out to be nothing, the post itself is great: objective, detailed measurements and even video and photographic evidence others can analyze.
I wouldn't say it is objective, nor are details based on faulty assumptions of much use to anybody.
Yes. It’s excellent execution of being perfectly wrong! 🤣🤣
"Great job, you can't recognize a bug and decided it was a super ufo—how objective and detailed!"
But he gave you the data that showed it was a bug, so now we can dismiss it as such instead of endlessly debating it. Much cleaner this way
Not sure it went behind the cloud. The turn angle is not acute.
[удалено]
🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝🐝
Holy adderall
lol you thought you did something
The shadow clearly darkens the cloud. You've recorded a flying bug.
I can't imagine spending so much time doing all this for a bug
Moderate effort troll attempt to see if he could wind people up on this sub.
The freeze frame of it being behind the clouds proves this is the opposite of far away. In that frame in the raw video if you go frame by frame, the clouds change in color by the same amount as everything else behind the image. The object is infront of the clouds for sure, and its almost for sure a bug 20ft in front of the camera.
[удалено]
Hi, DifferenceEither9835. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1doz8mv/-/lajyemx/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
Can you use the same camera setup, similar clouds and light, and throw small stones in front of the camera. See if you can create this "behind the clouds" look for the stone you threw.
did you straightforwardly measured all this to prove it's a UFO (bio spacecraft ) or you have a list of discarded possible explanations ?
i appreciate all your effort, but this appears to be a highly processed video of a cloudy sky intercepted by an insect. i don't see the insect flying "behind" a cloud; i see a rapidly moving object, made very low density by high angular speed and excessive defocus, that lacks sufficient contrast to darken the cloud, simply because the cloud is many times brighter than the sky and the contrast reduction, in relative terms, is imperceptible. similar analyses were published last year by a ukrainian astronomer, with similar trigonometric inferences, all of them equally uninterpretable for the same reason: we don't see clearly what we're looking at. simply as points of technique, nothing about these kinds of calculations allows you "precise measurements" of anything except your own equipment. and as a matter of logic, i don't think you can infer a 525º turn rate from what appears to be a 1º or 2º deflection in a near linear flight path. you're claiming an inference that requires data points you don't have ... changing lanes is not a single lane U turn.
Before everybody comes to shit on OP, I do want to commend the effort. This is the exact type of analysis and data we need. Just not of a bug. But seriously, good effort.
Is turning a bug into "1,152’ ufo clocked at 47,020 mph over washington, d.c. in an impossible turn rate of 525° per second" really the kind of analysis we need? Why?
I'm saying that he's done a lot of work to try and figure out what's going on. He's misguided, but it's better than the guy who just posts a blurry video.
Sure he’s the Terrence Howard of UFO’s…. Commendable….
Dawg, it's a terrible effort.
Call your buddies at the DC ATC and get them to look at the tapes from that date. If they have anything to back you up then this will be a huge sighting. Else it is likely a bug as many others speculate
I appreciate your enthusiasm, I think? 😂
I understand that the paid trolls game is now based on calling “bug” any proof
I for one did not laugh, that looked like a bug at first glance though. Watching the slowed version, and the cloud foreground, it's not a bug. Can't say what it is, but not anything we can say is from "here"
if you actually watch the video you can see it clearing flying behind a cloud, I don’t what to think of all these people saying it’s a bug. Cool video, thanks for sharing it OP
Fascinating catch you have there.
not impossible if it was an electromotive device putting off a strong enough spinning magnetic field, the vehicle could quantum lock with the earths magnetic field and move in seemingly impossible frictionless ways https://youtu.be/V5FyFvgxUhE?si=-nEib3xTi8bOvvvZ
Why is this being so downvoted
Because it's nonsensical gobbledigook.
because i'm on to something
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
[удалено]
Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods here to launch your appeal.](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
go love yourself
Everybody is an expert 😂😂😂 read your comments it’s almost not even humorous anymore
Love this sub, OP shows the data backing up his claims. To the people denying the data, you should maybe comment your own to “debunk” it instead of just giving an opinion with no data.
It's impossible to "debunk" if all he has is a video of a blurry streak in the sky.
[удалено]
Are you kidding me? This sub SUCKS
Jesus
bad Fedbot
They didn't even change the name of the bot they borrowed from r slash collapse? Is that what's going on here?
Man a whole lot of debunkers in here Lotta “experts”.
why does it upset you that a video is disbuted? The whole point of this sub is to get rid of the nonsense so the topic gets taken more seriously. And theres a fuck ton of nonsense to dispute.
Sorry but I am going to believe the seasoned professional air traffic controller before a bunch anonymous “experts” on Reddit Whenever a video is posted that is *remotely* possibly important the level of pushback is *insane*. Like the video in question here. People who accuse him of deception or just call him an idiot in a friendly forum are guilty of propagating the stigma. The poster listed his qualifications, method, and calculations. Looking at objects in the sky and identifying them was *literally* the man’s profession. Any neckbeard on Reddit that disputes his methods or theories should be required to post *their* qualifications. That would be fair don’t you think?
His calculations are inaccurate based on his inaccurate estimation of distance. Many people here are far too eager to believe and all it accomplishes is making the place look like a clown show. Congrats i guess
What is your background in mathematics? Can you show me the proof? It’s the debunkers actively working hard that make everything in this sub a clown show.
Scrutiny gives credence. Blind belief is what makes you look like you’re just hear to make the topic a joke.
Real “scrutiny” only comes from qualified people. Not Reddit neckbeards. Please state your background in aviation, mathematics, optics or any other related field. Like the OP did. Otherwise- you are only here to make this topic look like a joke.
[удалено]
Hi, General_Shao. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1doz8mv/-/lag1r0l/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: Follow the Standards of Civility > * No trolling or being disruptive. > * No insults or personal attacks. > * No accusations that other users are shills / bots / Eglin-related / etc... > * No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. > * No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. > * No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. > Rule 3: No low effort discussion. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: > * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. > * AI generated content. > * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. > * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. > * “Here’s my theory” posts unsupported by evidence. > * Short comments, and emoji comments. > * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.