Looking for help interpreting a video content

[glennfish]

In 2012 as part of a volunteer for Minnesota MUFON, I was asked to look at a video and interpret it. I've done this many times, and usually, could find a reasonable explanation, or at least, not too implausible. This particular example has had me scratching my head for quite some time. I've attached a PDF of my preliminary report, and can also provide the cited additional materials to anyone who wants to see the data, as close to raw as it gets after being passed around the internet.

In the PDF, you will see my analysis of what I think is in the video, and some rather unique 3-d reconstruction of the event suggesting object dimensions.

A summary of what you will see. A bright object with flashing outliers approach's, passes over and recedes from a moving vehicle. The nature of the object and it's corresponding outliers is to me, unexplainable, and rather remarkable. The witness(s) observer, recorder, was generally uncooperative and clueless and was more interested in monetary awards rather than the actual event. Again, details upon request.

If someone can pull this back into the real world for me, I'd appreciate it. PDF report attached, videos, if requested.

This one has bothered me for years, so I'd like some different perspectives if you can provide them.

 

[Mick West]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEUrArVAkU

It looks fake. If you want feedback, explain in a post exactly why you think it's not fake. I know you attached a PDF, but site guidelines require information to be in a post.

Here's a stabilized version

And a close-up of the second half, which seems to show bad tracking, rather than physical motion. Notice how it moves relative to the clouds.

 

[flarkey]

Interesting that at the 16sec mark there seems to be a bright light reflecting off the the shiney vehicle interior trim at the same time that the bright light is (apparently) outside of the vehicle. That suggests a hoax to me.

 

[Ann K]

The twinkling light looks like the IR (?) sensor of the phone's auto-focus feature, reflected in the window. Didn't we encounter that in a previous thread?

 

[glennfish]

First, thank you for finding the original and follow-on posts.

Re; Guidelines which suggest content be in the post rather than the PDF. Here are some elements that are discussed in the PDF that suggest it's not fake. Good or bad, they are elements to think about:

1. The PDF discusses CGI requirements circa 2011 which are required if this is CGI. CGI is not dismissed, rather, deprecated. CGI is possible, but for the time of recording, not likely.

a. optical features consistent of imaging through dual pane safety glass are present (page 3)​

b. refraction of the object when NOT in the field of view is present (pages 5.6.7)​

cl. During recession, the final ancillary flash occurs partially obscured by a tree with pixels indicating partial light transmission through greenery. (page 8)​

​

​

Assuming non CGI origin, window reflections of interior lights are possible, but not consistent with the 3-d reconstruction that follows. i.e. the vehicle is not large enough to show a reflection at an estimated 100 foot distance.

The 3-d analysis is the next section. Because the vehicle from which the recording originates is in motion it is possible to create a 3d stereo-image using the Pulfrich effect, whereby one eye views the current frame while the other eye views the previous frame.

This permits an approximate measurement of the distance of the object from the camera. When the object reaches the edge of the road, it is at a distance comparable to a previous view of a road sign type which permits an approximate measurement of the object diameter as 1 to 1.5 feet. This further leads to a closest approach distance of approximately 10 feet assuming the Android camera is properly identified.

The PDF looks at possible real-world equivalents and faults ball lightning and laser induced breakdown as candidates.

So as the analyst here, a decade later, I have no idea what it was, and if faked, I have no idea how it was faked. Hence, I've posted here in hopes someone can give me better answers than I've come up with.

​

 

[glennfish]

Stereogram using Pulfrich technique. Note road sign earier in the sequence and note when object appears at the same relative distance as the road sign.

 

[glennfish]

The twinkling light looks like the IR (?) sensor of the phone's auto-focus feature, reflected in the window. Didn't we encounter that in a previous thread?

I like the idea. Auto focus does funky things. Two reasons I don't agree. The twinkle move around more than the camera. More critically, the final twinkle appears to be behind a tree which would negate reflection off of the window. See supplemental posts since your comment.

 

[glennfish]

Interesting that at the 16sec mark there seems to be a bright light reflecting off the the shiney vehicle interior trim at the same time that the bright light is (apparently) outside of the vehicle. That suggests a hoax to me.

View attachment 92030

I see the spots you identify which show, also in motion blurring in other frames. What puzzles me is how the vectors you've drawn translate to "hoax". Forgive me, but I've spent hours on this with hoax as my number one candidate, but given the dozen hoax scenarios I've considered, I'm a bit unclear how these reflection points translate to hoax. I'd be quite happy with a hoax conclusion, but can't quite follow your logic. Please don't take this as contentious, but I have a half dozen patents in optical systems and have a more than layperson's view of optical phenomenon. Please expand on your reasoning. I really want to know what's in this video.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I've attached a PDF of my preliminary report, and can also provide the cited additional materials to anyone who wants to see the data, as close to raw as it gets after being passed around the internet.

Even before seeing Mick's quick analysis showing this may be a hoax (post #2), there are some things in your report that I would suggest are definitely red flags. First there is the metadata, or lack there of:

All relevant metadata regarding origin, date, time, and other factors available to the file either were not
recorded with the file or were deleted from the file retrieved for this analysis.

Then the inability to identify the location. Someone managing to record an extraordinary event on a 4 lane public freeway should be able to provide a close approximation:

The reported recording date was December 22, 2011, and the approximate location was somewhere
near the Indiana/Ohio border on a 4 lane freeway.

The recording was made from a moving vehicle which provides an extraordinarily unique opportunity
for analysis.

The recording was made during the daytime under cloudy skies which do not permit independent
geolocation through sun-angle shadows. Attempts to geolocate by traveling possible routes using
Google maps/earth have to this point been unable to identify an exact match to the actual location.

There are certainly some structures visible and a somewhat unique tree and bit of fence combo near the structures:

One would think the witnesses could give a close enough location, like a stretch of highway, where this scene could be located.

The witnesses seemed unable to properly identify the vehicle they were traveling in:

The video was apparently recorded from a moving van of unknown make/model/year at apparently
free-way speeds.

And as you say:

The witness(s) observer, recorder, was generally uncooperative and clueless and was more interested in monetary awards rather than the actual event.

I know it's MUFON and MUFON tends to look for UFOs, but it seems very sketchy from the beginning. It has all the hallmarks of a hoax of some sort. Maybe CGI, maybe something simpler. I just thought a few moments and went out to my truck and managed a glowing orb over the chicken coop. I'm not at all claiming this looks exactly the same, just that effects can be created fairly easy sometimes. Giving some practice in a moving vehicle and the addition of some blinking lights, maybe this technique would work?

I'm filming the reflection of a flashlight on the window.

Again, I don't know what was filmed, but IF it was some sort of real alien UFO buzzing a couple of dudes on the freeway, I think they would be more forthcoming with basic information. The deliberate obfuscation is a huge red flag.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many MUFON investigations remind me of Bigfoot enthusiasts and their response to the Patterson-Gimlin film. The fact that Patterson was a known hustler, had been trying to film a documentary about Bigfoot, drew what he filmed before he filmed it and always left out key information, like how the film made it from Nor Cal to Washington and got developed in a day and 1/2 are always ignored and proponents get fixated on showing why it wasn't a hoax. The argument becomes, "just because Patterson exhibits all the hallmarks of a hoaxer, maybe this time it wasn't a hoax". There became a huge emphasis for the skeptics on explaining EXACTLY how it was done, rather than admitting it probably was by whatever means. The Patterson family has recently come out and admitted what most people knew, the film was a hoax.

As I'm unaware of any known hoaxers, that happened to also record an actual alien spacecraft, it would seem prudent to procedure from the standpoint that witnesses presenting sketchy back stories and a reluctance to share pertinent information may be hoaxing, by any number of techniques, not just CGI.

 

[flarkey]

Please expand on your reasoning. I really want to know what's in this video.

I'm suggesting that the the small reflections are due to a bright light inside the vehicle, which is also the source of the large bright light which appears to be outside the vehicle, but is in fact a reflection on the windows - first the left window and then the right. This can only be an intentional video capture by those inside the vehicle and therefore the tentative conclusion is a hoax.

 

[FatPhil]

1. The PDF discusses CGI requirements circa 2011 which are required if this is CGI. CGI is not dismissed, rather, deprecated. CGI is possible, but for the time of recording, not likely.

I remember my nephew was doing things better than that on an apple mac - even interacting with the glowing balls of light, including radiosity mapping - in the early-to-mid noughties, when he was just a young teen. So I don't buy your "not likely". It's just a function of motivation, and that's something we can conclude nothing about.

 

[FatPhil]

More critically, the final twinkle appears to be behind a tree

What does that even mean: if it's "behind" a tree, how can is "appear" at all? We can't see through trees, last I knew.

 

[Ann K]

What does that even mean: if it's "behind" a tree, how can is "appear" at all? We can't see through trees, last I knew.

Of course we can. Not all trees are a solid mass of leaves, like a cartoon depiction.

 

[glennfish]

My suggestion is go frame by frame towards the end of the video, and when you see the flash "behind a tree" tell me what you think is happening there.

 

[glennfish]

I'm suggesting that the the small reflections are due to a bright light inside the vehicle, which is also the source of the large bright light which appears to be outside the vehicle, but is in fact a reflection on the windows - first the left window and then the right. This can only be an intentional video capture by those inside the vehicle and therefore the tentative conclusion is a hoax.

View attachment 92046

I totally get what you and several others have suggested. My original thought was blinking christmas tree lights inside the van reflected off the window. Other MUFON folks came to the same conclusion and that ended the MUFON interest in the event.

Here's what got to me, and what I want you to look at given your concept, quite validly presented. Look at the 3-d video reconstruction. It will take a bit of eye training. In there, you can see, if you see what I see, something approaches the vehicle. In your illustration above with the boy with the flashlight, I cannot figure out how to replicate that.

To get the approach effect, the flashlight has to move towards the window, from previously being far away from the window. The 3-d data gives us a reference point of the road sign at being 100 feet from the vehicle, while the object is much further away. The object approaches and gets to the same 100 foot point as the road sign.

An a priori assumption that the window is curved and magnifies in at least one axis is fine, and reduces the van interior from 100 foot to something much less, but... The flashlight position in the vehicle has to have moved from distant to close to the reflecting window to get to that point, and then continue closer, without becoming visible, and then somehow shift position to outside the vehicle shining down on the window to show the specular refractions visible in the next few frames.

Picture your boy with the flashlight as far from the window as possible, bringing the flashlight closer and closer to the window, then hopping through the sun roof, in a few frame times, to shine down on the window.

I just can't come up with a hoax implementation that has all these elements covered.

Please take the time to critique all of my comments. I appreciate reasoned critique. Even if we establish it doesn't seem to be a hoax, I have no next step to say, "and therefore it is...."

That particular factor floored my dismissal. When I say something is a hoax, I want the evidence to be as good as if I say something is real. That issue, kept me looking at this. I'd like your opinion after you view the 3-d video as to how your boy with a flashlight could replicate that. If you can figure out how to do that, then I'm happy, I'm done, I have my explanation, except,
for the flash behind the tree. See my comment to the other commenter asking how to see through a tree.

I've tossed maybe 50 videos and still photos of lights and moving stuff over the wall as fakes, hoaxes, illusions, moving reflections, parallax issues, etc. I have never seen what I would call a valid photo or video of a valid UAP, once I get my hands on the data. This one.... unless you can give me a physical model that says hoax, still has me stumped.

 

[glennfish]

I remember my nephew was doing things better than that on an apple mac - even interacting with the glowing balls of light, including radiosity mapping - in the early-to-mid noughties, when he was just a young teen. So I don't buy your "not likely". It's just a function of motivation, and that's something we can conclude nothing about.

Could you identify what year your nephew was doing radiosity mapping. Did that include both reflective and refractive properties? For example, I was doing similar stuff in the late '80s with custom software. I'm unaware of when such capabilities were available on the mac, nor what software was available with those capabilities in what years. Could you investigate please and identify the year and software in use at that time? Please?

 

[glennfish]

Even before seeing Mick's quick analysis showing this may be a hoax (post #2), there are some things in your report that I would suggest are definitely red flags. First there is the metadata, or lack there of:

All relevant metadata regarding origin, date, time, and other factors available to the file either were not
recorded with the file or were deleted from the file retrieved for this analysis.

Then the inability to identify the location. Someone managing to record an extraordinary event on a 4 lane public freeway should be able to provide a close approximation:

The reported recording date was December 22, 2011, and the approximate location was somewhere
near the Indiana/Ohio border on a 4 lane freeway.

The recording was made from a moving vehicle which provides an extraordinarily unique opportunity
for analysis.

The recording was made during the daytime under cloudy skies which do not permit independent
geolocation through sun-angle shadows. Attempts to geolocate by traveling possible routes using
Google maps/earth have to this point been unable to identify an exact match to the actual location.

There are certainly some structures visible and a somewhat unique tree and bit of fence combo near the structures:

View attachment 92040

One would think the witnesses could give a close enough location, like a stretch of highway, where this scene could be located.

The witnesses seemed unable to properly identify the vehicle they were traveling in:

The video was apparently recorded from a moving van of unknown make/model/year at apparently
free-way speeds.

And as you say:



I know it's MUFON and MUFON tends to look for UFOs, but it seems very sketchy from the beginning. It has all the hallmarks of a hoax of some sort. Maybe CGI, maybe something simpler. I just thought a few moments and went out to my truck and managed a glowing orb over the chicken coop. I'm not at all claiming this looks exactly the same, just that effects can be created fairly easy sometimes. Giving some practice in a moving vehicle and the addition of some blinking lights, maybe this technique would work?


View attachment 92044

I'm filming the reflection of a flashlight on the window.

Again, I don't know what was filmed, but IF it was some sort of real alien UFO buzzing a couple of dudes on the freeway, I think they would be more forthcoming with basic information. The deliberate obfuscation is a huge red flag.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many MUFON investigations remind me of Bigfoot enthusiasts and their response to the Patterson-Gimlin film. The fact that Patterson was a known hustler, had been trying to film a documentary about Bigfoot, drew what he filmed before he filmed it and always left out key information, like how the film made it from Nor Cal to Washington and got developed in a day and 1/2 are always ignored and proponents get fixated on showing why it wasn't a hoax. The argument becomes, "just because Patterson exhibits all the hallmarks of a hoaxer, maybe this time it wasn't a hoax". There became a huge emphasis for the skeptics on explaining EXACTLY how it was done, rather than admitting it probably was by whatever means. The Patterson family has recently come out and admitted what most people knew, the film was a hoax.

As I'm unaware of any known hoaxers, that happened to also record an actual alien spacecraft, it would seem prudent to procedure from the standpoint that witnesses presenting sketchy back stories and a reluctance to share pertinent information may be hoaxing, by any number of techniques, not just CGI.

Than you for your detailed comment.

Regarding your points.

Metadata. Absolutely agree. The issue could be idiot file copies, or deliberate attempts to obfuscate. All I can report is what I found.

Location. Metadata would have given us latitude longitude. I talked to the submitter and he was returning from a location that put him on a highway to Philadelphia, but didn't actually know where the recording was made. Can't move past that either. Regarding structures, I drove possible areas on Google Maps, and couldn't fid a corresponding location.

Regarding vehicle, I didn't ask. He said it was a van. Regarding speed, I didn't ask, I later inferred freeway speeds at 60 mph, but it could have been 50, 80, 100. I don't know. For the 3d reconstruction I set it at 60.

I wasn't affiliated with MUFON. I knew the Minnesota MUFON director and he'd send me stuff from time to time based on our prior experience in other matters. By the time I got it, MUFON had already declared it as a hoax using reflecting christmas tree lights. As a courtesy, I looked at it so I could agree, My problem is that a hoax requires as much evidence as a non hoax, and I got hung up that I couldn't find adequate hoax evidence, hence our discussion.

I don't know much about MUFON biases, but I wouldn't, based on what I've heard, or experienced, declare them as expert, competent, or similar accolades. I spent 20 odds years designing and building optical systems fighting every imaginable optical artifact you can imagine. If this were simple reflections even on a rube goldberg device, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If some punk kids in a van can fool me, with some gimmick I've never seen before, well, show me the damned gimmick. I may be able to use it elsewhere.

I have run into "hoaxers" over time. There's one quality about them that doesn't fit this case. The witness wasn't very intelligent.

I'm not claiming this is an alien spacecraft, or any whatever of human or non human origin. I'm claiming that it's a video of an object doing behavior that I can't explain, that possibly is of interest to this community. If someone can help me identify what it is, or how it was done, I have all the answer I need.

 

[glennfish]

Even before seeing Mick's quick analysis showing this may be a hoax (post #2), there are some things in your report that I would suggest are definitely red flags. First there is the metadata, or lack there of:

All relevant metadata regarding origin, date, time, and other factors available to the file either were not
recorded with the file or were deleted from the file retrieved for this analysis.

Then the inability to identify the location. Someone managing to record an extraordinary event on a 4 lane public freeway should be able to provide a close approximation:

The reported recording date was December 22, 2011, and the approximate location was somewhere
near the Indiana/Ohio border on a 4 lane freeway.

The recording was made from a moving vehicle which provides an extraordinarily unique opportunity
for analysis.

The recording was made during the daytime under cloudy skies which do not permit independent
geolocation through sun-angle shadows. Attempts to geolocate by traveling possible routes using
Google maps/earth have to this point been unable to identify an exact match to the actual location.

There are certainly some structures visible and a somewhat unique tree and bit of fence combo near the structures:

View attachment 92040

One would think the witnesses could give a close enough location, like a stretch of highway, where this scene could be located.

The witnesses seemed unable to properly identify the vehicle they were traveling in:

The video was apparently recorded from a moving van of unknown make/model/year at apparently
free-way speeds.

And as you say:



I know it's MUFON and MUFON tends to look for UFOs, but it seems very sketchy from the beginning. It has all the hallmarks of a hoax of some sort. Maybe CGI, maybe something simpler. I just thought a few moments and went out to my truck and managed a glowing orb over the chicken coop. I'm not at all claiming this looks exactly the same, just that effects can be created fairly easy sometimes. Giving some practice in a moving vehicle and the addition of some blinking lights, maybe this technique would work?


View attachment 92044

I'm filming the reflection of a flashlight on the window.

Again, I don't know what was filmed, but IF it was some sort of real alien UFO buzzing a couple of dudes on the freeway, I think they would be more forthcoming with basic information. The deliberate obfuscation is a huge red flag.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many MUFON investigations remind me of Bigfoot enthusiasts and their response to the Patterson-Gimlin film. The fact that Patterson was a known hustler, had been trying to film a documentary about Bigfoot, drew what he filmed before he filmed it and always left out key information, like how the film made it from Nor Cal to Washington and got developed in a day and 1/2 are always ignored and proponents get fixated on showing why it wasn't a hoax. The argument becomes, "just because Patterson exhibits all the hallmarks of a hoaxer, maybe this time it wasn't a hoax". There became a huge emphasis for the skeptics on explaining EXACTLY how it was done, rather than admitting it probably was by whatever means. The Patterson family has recently come out and admitted what most people knew, the film was a hoax.

As I'm unaware of any known hoaxers, that happened to also record an actual alien spacecraft, it would seem prudent to procedure from the standpoint that witnesses presenting sketchy back stories and a reluctance to share pertinent information may be hoaxing, by any number of techniques, not just CGI.

Excellent replication of in interior reflection looking exterior.

That was my first interpretation as well.

The challenge that I cannot replicate, that maybe you can, is in the 3d reconstruction video. Please take a look at that.

If you can tell me how to replicate that, my quest is over.

 

[John J.]

If you can figure out how to do that, then I'm happy, I'm done, I have my explanation, except,
for the flash behind the tree. See my comment to the other commenter asking how to see through a tree.

I don't really understand this. If the video appears to show a flash behind a tree (and not just through foliage), that could be an indication that the videoed light is in fact closer than the tree. Perhaps a reflection in glass.

Or maybe an oversight in producing a CGI clip.
The claimants don't seem to have been particularly helpful in supplying quite basic information; we seem to know very little about them (including any possible access to CGI resources, or perhaps a record of producing interesting videos like the Cousins brothers in Hawaii).
The 2010 SF movie Monsters had pretty good CGI special effects all done essentially by one guy using off-the shelf software (he also did all the rest of the cinematography), Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_(2010_film)
Admittedly the film had a $500,000 budget, but that covered all aspects of the film's production (not just SFX) and resulted in a successful 91 minute feature film.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your meaning.

 

[glennfish]

I don't really understand this. If the video appears to show a flash behind a tree (and not just through foliage), that could be an indication that the videoed light is in fact closer than the tree. Perhaps a reflection in glass.

Or maybe an oversight in producing a CGI clip.
The claimants don't seem to have been particularly helpful in supplying quite basic information; we seem to know very little about them (including any possible access to CGI resources, or perhaps a record of producing interesting videos like the Cousins brothers in Hawaii).
The 2010 SF movie Monsters had pretty good CGI special effects all done essentially by one guy using off-the shelf software (he also did all the rest of the cinematography), Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsters_(2010_film)
Admittedly the film had a $500,000 budget, but that covered all aspects of the film's production (not just SFX) and resulted in a successful 91 minute feature film.

Apologies if I've misunderstood your meaning.

I guess the simplest answer is this. Please go through the end of the video frame by frame looking for the final secondary flash. I contend it might be behind a tree. When you find that frame, tell me what you think you see. A magnification of that frame is in the images in this thread.

 

[NorCal Dave]

By the time I got it, MUFON had already declared it as a hoax using reflecting christmas tree lights. As a courtesy, I looked at it so I could agree, My problem is that a hoax requires as much evidence as a non hoax, and I got hung up that I couldn't find adequate hoax evidence, hence our discussion.

I would agree, up to a point. Being able to definitively prove something a hoax, and how it was done, is the gold standard. Just me, but I think the problem here is that it creates a swapping of the burden of proof: Someone makes an extraordinary claim and it's up to the everyone else to prove, with a complete recreation, why the claim is not valid. Not saying you're engaging in this at all.

Again using the Patterson-Gimlin film as an example, all of the context around the film strongly suggested a hoax. Exactly how it was done, is still a question. Did Patterson purchase a gorilla costume or make his own or did he modify one? Did the filming actually take place on the day and time reported, or had it been done days before? Was Bob Heronimous in the costume? We don't know, but does that make it any less of a probable hoax? There is no, nor has there ever been, any physical evidence for Bigfoot. No body, no fossil record, no scat, no hair, no bones, no DNA, nothing, while there is a body of known hoaxers associated with it. Exactly how the hoax was carried out, is interesting, but ultimately irrelevant.

I would argue it's the same with UFO videos and claims. There is no actual physical evidence for aliens visitation and ample evidence of people hoaxing such claims. When presented with a number of red flags, it seems a hoax is likely.

Now, I agree simply saying "Christmas lights" explains it, is not helpful. Better to just say the context suggests a hoax, and the means is still unknown. Nothing wrong with trying to figure out how it was done, but I don't find the complete lack of an explanation a compelling argument that this was super natural or otherworldly.

The witness wasn't very intelligent.

Using a Bushism, never "missunderestimate" what seeming dullards can pull off. This same argument was, again, used often in the Patterson-
Gimlin film. These uneducated yokels could not have possibly pulled off something this complex. With a useless BA degree in Communications, I spent most of my "professional" life in construction and the trades. One would be amazed at what seeming uneducated dip-shits can come up with when needed, especially if money was involved.

Excellent replication of in interior reflection looking exterior.

That was my first interpretation as well.

The challenge that I cannot replicate, that maybe you can, is in the 3d reconstruction video. Please take a look at that.

If you can tell me how to replicate that, my quest is over.

Again, I'm not claiming this is how it was done. Rather, there are all sorts of ways, besides CGI, that might have been used. As we don't know every conceivable technique that might be used, it's hard to say none were. And I don't think CGI is completely off the table. This has come up before, where it is dismissed because of the perceived technology of the time, when in fact it was very doable.