"4k UFOs Video" in the Serra do Rio Rastro, in Brazil. Probably insects?

[Mauro]

And if we are being honest, nothing ever will.

Poisoning of the well

 

[jdog]

Not sure how seriously science or society is supposed to take something we can't detect, record, gather evidence of, or interact with in any meaningful way.

 

[FatPhil]

Not only all cameras are GARBAGE for this goal to produce convincing evidence of said UFOs (because they move too fast and don't remain still in many cases, and if you are trying to get information at night, forget it, exposure time is always required, and they need to collect light, which distant small objects, extremely photon-poor, never give them), when they do (remember the flying saucers from decades ago? Most of them debunked or we are still calling fakes?), it's never enough to convince a skeptic. And if we are being honest, nothing ever will.

Believers making *assumptions* about properties of things that there is no evidence of will *never* convince a skeptic. Definitionally. Also, asserting that modern cameras are garbage and will never convince a believer also seems to be a confession that believers are the ones who will never be convinced by actual evidence (of mundanities, and of which we have plenty, an almost endless stream of it in fact).

I can also see you lining up a "no true scotsman" fallacy as a potential followup, you're more than half way there already; note that that will be detected the moment you do it.

 

[Perene]

I think anyone who flies a drone regularly should not find the little speck going across the frame in this video remarkable. It just looks like a bird or maybe a closer insect.

An insect that size?

At some point in the footage it showed birds which appeared to be smaller, when one of the UFOs fly above it, a few (birds) can be seen below.

As for "how can you determine it's not an animal", as I said before, if you spot any UFO that emits light, it has to be an object.

I think this is the original footage (no zoom applied), which some comments warned the uploader:


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


(About the uploader, considering it's a "drone" Youtube channel and there's sensationalism with further videos about the fact (and the video titles, one even mentions "a portal" where the UFOs supposedly went/were), it's not far-fetched to posit this was FAKED or a deliberate lie about what they were seeing).

Back to the "original footage" (from the video above): Check at 10 minutes and 50 seconds, one white (?) speck crosses the frame. Could this be a bird? At least to me, it doesn't appear to be moving in a straight trajectory.

At first, I thought the trajectory of one of the UFOs appeared to be inconsistent with how birds fly, if it was going without any change in its path, in a straight line (plus, it didn't appear to reveal, at least when zoomed, anything besides the spherical shape). I don't know how can someone look at a video (assuming they checked the unedited / raw file, not whatever was posted on Youtube) and measure the approximate speed. But if it's going at 300 mph (500 km/h), that rules out drones and animals, doesn't it? Did they assume that solely based on how much time it took (according to the footage) to move from point A to B?

Not sure how seriously science or society is supposed to take something we can't detect.

UAPs have been detected for many years... in the 2004 Tic-Tac's event, they registered multiple (I am not talking about the pilots), claim to have measured their speeds, how high and low they were, etc.

Others did the same in different events. Assuming they got something right, not 100% of their measures wrong, and even if these were all alien crafts/drones, my question is... did that help in any way science or society? Are we any close to capture a single object or alien? Did we discover the precise location of the submarine USS Louisville that day? No.

What's the use of detection, if we don't do something clever the next time?

Why does it matter to me or anyone here to gather all this data about the UAPs, if we can't act on it?

record

Well, to quote Alex Dietrich (from the Tic-Tac 2004 event), which probably forgot the U.S. military budget is close to 1 trillion: "who would pay for installing these devices/cameras?". And we are now expecting NASA, with their tiny budget, to help us... Dietrich and others forgot/didn't care to turn their recording devices on, in the 1st encounter. And the 2nd time they claim another UFO was spotted (2 hours later, in another location), Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood produced a useless video that is incapable of confirming anything. As all other UFO recordings are...

If there's one thing I don't expect to help anyone, are these records. Not going to dash anyone's hope, it's just I don't think pictures or videos will be relevant in any way. Plus, if this is all we get, you can bet your life a skeptic will call it fake. Even if you enter the spaceship and film inside it. My point is: if all we have are IMAGES and VIDEOS, and that's it, we have nothing, in the end. Because now, to tell what is real and fake, is almost impossible. It was already hard with Photoshop, now it's all a joke with AI... And righty so, everyone will not think it's enough. There will be no vindication for the people that believe aliens exist, if the objects are gone, despite how good the images are.

gather evidence of

Clearly most people tasked with gathering what we consider "good evidence" are very incompetent to obtain and secure them (in the Tic-Tac event, some of the crew said data/logs that could further prove how anomalous the object was, end up stolen the next day! Probably by the men in black or the aliens themselves, disguised as humans...), because they are not equipped with anything that can produce anything worth checking, later.

John J: Comparing how UFOs move and behave with regular planes and other easily registered objects in the sky, at day or night, is ridiculous beyond belief. Even if you try to use a US$ 10,000 camera you will struggle with it, to a point your evidence may end up being a fuzzy blob. The only chance, is if it doesn't move too much, if it's big enough and not so distant, and if the weather and lighting are favorable.

Did you read when I said until 1989 we had no records of SPRITES, which are't aliens, but instead a natural phenomenon? To claim anyone with a camera can record UFOs is to admit you know nothing about how they work. I can easily record a star or a galaxy, if there's not too much light pollution, use a tripod (never forget that without it, most images won't even form), and wait for seconds or perhaps minutes for light to be gathered by the camera, which is almost blind compared to my eye, that can easily notice said UFOs, even if they appear to be pinpoints in that same sky, not different from regular planes flying miles above me at the zenith.

The challenge here is that we can't tell to our beloved aliens to hover, and wait for us to take the best shot we can. Of course during the day things are far more easier, I don't need to wait or be overly prepared to capture an airplane in the sky. But if the UFO is at the same height and is 3 times smaller, my telescope can see it perfecly, my 500 $ camera, probably not. Never underestimate how hard it is to capture a moving/small target.

interact with in any meaningful way.

Everytime we see UFOs they act elusive and flee the scene when spotted. The only "meaningful" interaction I can think of is to be prepared to intercept the next time and attempt to destroy them. Or at least, don't bother with recording them only, alert someone else at another distant location to try and check them out.

Clearly, whatever they are, they either know better about us humans or don't care enough to come down here and chat with us. Or if they are man-made flying objects, the pilots or people controlling them from distance, are so good there are no trackers inside most of the objects that can tell exactly where and when they travelled, or any record of them ever flying at any location from this planet.

Besides, even if we knew exactly where a submarine was at a specific day (and to think otherwise is to insult anyone's intelligence here), what kind of plane flew in the area Underwood took that footage, and many other events could be easily explained, we are clearly not tracking (or inserting trackers inside all sorts of balloons and other flying objects) and avoiding many of them from invading our airspace (doesn't have to be aliens, think about spies doing it!), and such records are being destroyed the next day, or buried under secrecy.

But the reasons for such sloppy behaviors don't have to involve hidden alien tech from Area 51. Did you know about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

Try to picture how "careful" these people (with their almost 1 trillion budget!) are, with preserving data. And it's just the way they and the government act, with anything. Were all FOIA requests been answered with the data we asked, for the Tic-Tac (and other UFO) event(s)?

They are all full of shit, and the last ones I would put any hope of helping us. It's so pathetic they even hide the names of others involved! (Fravor did this with his peers that witnessed that day). And the man refused to be interviewed by Mick West. Ask yourself who are the ones interested about the truth.

Oh, before I forget, remember another fact about the 2004 event: none of the pilots went to "investigate" the UFOs, prepared to fire against a possible enemy. No ordnance on board, only practice missiles that could not be launched!

If they had any intent to harm us, they would have done so, and not even these reports would have survived for us to try to debunk. I think we can safely assume if the aliens wanted to invade this planet, a huge open door would be available for them to "kick". That's because, as someone at NASA said, the millitary's role is not to gather more info / intercept UAPs, it's to "protect us".

 

[Gaspa]

An insect that size?

What size? We have no idea what is its size, and it depends on how far from the camera it is.

We see some birds down below, close to the ground, which are fairly in focus and we can even make out some details like wings flapping. The same can't be said of the object, which means it is probably much closer, so even though it appear larger, it is likely smaller. You are comparing the sizes of two things that are not the same distance apart, and claiming to know that one is larger than the other. That's like saying the Moon is about the same size as the Sun.

 

[Gaspa]

As for "how can you determine it's not an animal", as I said before, if you spot any UFO that emits light

And why on Earth do you think these things are emitting light, and not just reflecting sunlight?

 

[Gaspa]

Comparing how UFOs move and behave with regular planes and other easily registered objects in the sky, at day or night, is ridiculous beyond belief.

To be clear: what do you mean by UFO? Because the literal meaning is "something in the air that hasn't been identified". And every time that something that starts as a UFO ends up being identified it has turned out to be something mundane, like a plane, a balloon, even stars and planets etc., that moves just like anything else in the sky. And we have no decent evidence of anything moving in any other way.

 

[Ann K]

An insect that size?

What size? We have no way to determine that.

if you spot any UFO that emits light, it has to be an object.

Can you distinguish between emitted light and reflected light on a filmed image? White is white. Here's a clip from that film, in which the truck cab, it can be assumed, emits no light. The "starlink flares" which have frequently been mistaken for UFOs, emit no light but merely reflect it.

 

[Ann K]

But if it's going at 300 mph (500 km/h), that rules out drones and animals, doesn't it? Did they assume that solely based on how much time it took (according to the footage) to move from point A to B?

That's another thing that cannot possibly be determined if you don't know the size and therefore don't know the distance. Points A and B are only known in two dimensions, not in three.

Why does it matter to me or anyone here to gather all this data about the UAPs, if we can't act on it?

You're not collecting data. You're collecting guesses, surmises, lens flares, natural phenomena, misidentifications, and excited utterances. Then you and others are doing pseudo-mathematics on your non-facts as if that was meaningful. And your "act on it" comment disturbs me most of all, because shooting down a balloon or a drone is merely destructive, but shooting down a misidentified passenger aircraft would be a major tragedy.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I really can't follow what you're saying. First you seem to say a possible bird does NOT appear to be moving in a "straight trajectory":

Could this be a bird? At least to me, it doesn't appear to be moving in a straight trajectory.

Then you say it's "inconsistent with how birds fly" because it's going straight:

At first, I thought the trajectory of one of the UFOs appeared to be inconsistent with how birds fly, if it was going without any change in its path, in a straight line (plus, it didn't appear to reveal, at least when zoomed, anything besides the spherical shape).

Birds, as well as insects fly in all kinds of ways. Sometimes straight, sometimes in zigzags, sometimes in combination. You can't rule out either because it flies one way or the other.

You start off here saying you don't know how someone can calculate the speed of an object from a video, but then assume the calculated speed of 300MPH rules stuff out:

I don't know how can someone look at a video (assuming they checked the unedited / raw file, not whatever was posted on Youtube) and measure the approximate speed. But if it's going at 300 mph (500 km/h), that rules out drones and animals, doesn't it? Did they assume that solely based on how much time it took (according to the footage) to move from point A to B?

As has been noted multiple times, those calculations can only be arrived at if one knows the size or distance of the object from the camera. Smaller and closer is moving slower. And as you noted, the object is above the birds that are in turn above the ground:

At some point in the footage it showed birds which appeared to be smaller, when one of the UFOs fly above it, a few (birds) can be seen below.

So, how does one calculate how long it takes to get from point A to B, if A and B are on the ground and the object is far above the ground?

See this thread. It's almost the exact same situation, a drone video where the operator later discovered a UAP flying through the scene:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/tic-tac-in-greece.12147/

You'll note the original poster "calculates" the object to be moving at ~700mph because the scene shows ~311m across and the object covers that area in ~2 seconds:

so to back up my claim (with some data) that this was no seagull. I have taken the distance of this stretch in the video from google maps (below)

So the distance is approx 311 metres. I think we would all agree the object takes approx 2 seconds to cover this distance. Therefore by my mathematical calculations, the object (which in my opinion is indeed cylindrical in appearance) has to be flying at a speed of somewhere around 700 MPH.

From Google - 'a seagull can fly between 15 and 28 km / h at an actual speed of 22 km'

So what kind of seagull is this?

This might be right, IF the object was a ground level. If it's not, then it's moving slower. This concept took 2 pages of comments to get across. However, @JMartJr provided a nice visual to illustrate it using a beach ball. If the drone is in the air and the beach ball is covering the 311m at ground level in 2 seconds, then it might be going ~700mph. But if it's closer to the drone, it's covering a smaller distance in the same time, so it's going slower:

 

[Gaspa]

A couple of these UFOs that appear really quickly in the original video at 10:33. Stabilized and with echo.
First one crosses the screen close to the bottom, the other just below the middle of the screen. Both left to right.

The way they increase in size tells us they are fly past the drone.
(My first time using premiere, so criticism and tips on how to get better results would be appreciated - in a different thread, of course)

"Annotated":

 

[John J.]

John J: Comparing how UFOs move and behave with regular planes and other easily registered objects in the sky, at day or night, is ridiculous beyond belief. Even if you try to use a US$ 10,000 camera you will struggle with it

Almost all footage of UFOs that I've seen, which the filmer thinks might be something anomalous, shows lights/ objects moving at (apparent) speeds that the eye can track fairly easily. In many accounts, and many videos, they are sometimes stationary or moving relatively slowly.
Are you saying anything that isn't moving really fast (from the observer's perspective) isn't an alien spacecraft?

That all the accounts of large, slowly-moving UFOs, or UFOs encountered at modest distances on the ground, are not descriptions of alien spacecraft? Then there must be other explanations for these accounts: Misperceptions, misidentifications, hoaxes.

Did you read when I said until 1989 we had no records of SPRITES, which are't aliens, but instead a natural phenomenon?

Yes. Actually I posted a bit about sprites a couple of years back. Surely the salient point is their existence was confirmed when they were caught on camera.
Even though they're rare, of very short duration, and at high altitude.
And the most compelling contemporary evidence for them before the conclusive 1989 footage was from a NASA pilot flying a U2 in 1973.

 

[John J.]

...we are clearly not tracking (or inserting trackers inside all sorts of balloons and other flying objects) and avoiding many of them from invading our airspace (doesn't have to be aliens, think about spies doing it!), and such records are being destroyed the next day, or buried under secrecy.

I think you'll find that NORAD uses very advanced, expensive technology to track objects that might threaten US/ Canadian airspace.
It can track (God forbid) re-entering ICBM warheads, which can move at approx. Mach 15 (over 7 km/ 4.35 miles a second),
NASA technical note D-1643, John D. Warmbrod, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19630005471/downloads/19630005471.pdf

The technical specifications and operating parameters of the relevant systems are usually secret, for what must be fairly obvious reasons.
There are probably some leaders of some nations who would be very supportive of calls for disclosure of this information, and it might not be because they're interested in UFOs.

"Spies" are unlikely to fit trackers to their aircraft to make them more detectable. Nor will military adversaries. "The enemy is not stupid."
And people using light aircraft or drones for illicit means, e.g. drug smuggling, won't be putting trackers on their aircraft for the convenience of law enforcement agencies. And if their aircraft/ drone is acquired with a tracker pre-fitted, they'll remove it.

It's probably not practical to try and put trackers in every helium party balloon, even though party balloons have caused some UFO sightings.
And even if it were, I'm not sure that's the type of society most of us would want.

 

[purpleivan]

Back to the "original footage" (from the video above): Check at 10 minutes and 50 seconds, one white (?) speck crosses the frame. Could this be a bird? At least to me, it doesn't appear to be moving in a straight trajectory.

I checked this part of the video (the speck entering at 10:52) which moves up and right from where it enters the bottom of the frame and to my eye it was moving in, approximately at least, a straight line.

I decided to check this by grabbing some frames from that part of the video and adjusting them manually in Photoshop, so that they were adjusted to counter the movement of the camera (at least as well as I was able in reasonable time), so that the movement of the object could be tracked more accurately.

Here's a video showing the result of that, which is that the object does move in a straight line. At least as close to straight as the to be well within what would be expected of a bird flying in straight line.

 

[Perene]

What size? We have no idea what is its size, and it depends on how far from the camera it is.

We see some birds down below, close to the ground, which are fairly in focus and we can even make out some details like wings flapping. The same can't be said of the object, which means it is probably much closer, so even though it appear larger, it is likely smaller. You are comparing the sizes of two things that are not the same distance apart, and claiming to know that one is larger than the other. That's like saying the Moon is about the same size as the Sun.

To find out what you do not know, you must first recognize what you think you know - and then test it. If we cannot measure the speed, we can still prove what the object is not, and that is the first step toward the truth, refuting false hypotheses to narrow down what could be.

I didn't think about any insect, because they are too small.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXc6TdqJ588


About what could have been, this video tries to "debunk" the whole thing. First, it begins after 2m30s to mention that a high-speed linear motion is not compatible with birds or insects. Birds and insects do not move in long, straight, constant-velocity paths at the speeds reported (if they are accurate). Their flight signatures are very different.

Birds accelerate using wingbeats, not propulsion. This creates oscillatory (wave-like) paths, never a perfectly straight line. Even the fastest birds (peregrine falcon) achieve high velocity only during dives, with large arcs, visible banking and deceleration.

They cannot maintain a constant-velocity straight line at high speed close to the horizon. Especially horizontal high-speed linear motion is biologically impossible.

Insects flap wings at extremely high frequency, causing jitter, zig-zag micro-corrections and non-linear paths. Even when they appear quick to the eye, cameras always reveal erratic trajectories, abrupt changes and wing-beat artifacts. A clean, geometrically perfect linear motion is never produced by them.

That's the first thing I think it caught my attention for these UFOs, despite the lack of confirmation of what you are pointing out.

After 3m30s, we can clearly see a bird (with color) flying across the image of the original uploader's drone. We can also tell it's closer.

After 4m40s, out of focus but closer, an insect. Notice the trajectory is never the same. There's also lack of detail.

After 5m45s, very close to the original location, we have the strongest hypothesis for this case: there's a military police post (?), which is confirmed to have used drones to monitor that region (check after 7 minutes). This article (there's a similar link from the government) mentions that, too: https://alianca.news/noticias/antig...alizacao-com-drones-nas-rodovias-catarinenses

But, some comments seem to dismiss that idea, saying:

a) I have a friend that operates drones for the police state, even worked in that area. He said the police uses the DJI Mavic 3 Enterprise (black) model for drones, disguised. This friend ruled out the possibility any of the objects seen in the footage to be drones.

b) Another comment says the Santa Catarina state police was contacted and said they didn't use drones in there, due to the strong winds from that location (at least according to this brazilian ufologist, which supposedly made the call):
https://www.youtube.com/@CanaldoSchwarza/search?query=OVNI serra

The problem is, his credibility, too, is as high as Luis Elizondo's (you know what I mean...).

Back to our video:

At 8 minutes, the guy says he researched that drone, and the max speed is 75 km/h (or 46 mph). At least the one commented as a possibility by that other guy he mentions (from the police).

8m25s: The drone hypothesis is good, because despite this case having footage from a drone expert, they didn't notice anything when recording, didn't see the objects while in there, only after (were warned by Youtube users). And this after slowing the speed, of course (and applying zoom).

All the footage from this case does not show drone propellers because the objects are going up (climbing) fast, so when we watch in slow-motion, there's motion smear/drag - a visual artifact that distorts the image.

At 9m05s, the 2nd guy in the video explains this may be the reason why we don't see such details from the UFO. That doesn't mean they (the propellers) were never there, only that despite also magnifying the contents, we are unable to notice them. Besides, the proposed "very fast and unusual speeds" may be only in theory, so not true, because if they are closer than they appear, then aren't really so quick as we thought initially.

9m45s: We said drones as fast as 75 km/h, also another model that can reach 135 km/h (or 83 mph). And they can also be white. There's also another explanation:

3rd guy: after 10 minutes, another evidence that can dismiss the claims the UFOs were flying at "hypersonic" speeds.

10m15s: the author of the footage tells us there are a few birds below the UFO, which are flying and flapping their wings.

10m25s: "the video is running in slow-motion, and frame by frame the UFO moves over the real birds. Pay close attention to the UFO's movement speed and also to the birds' movement in the same take. They are almost the same speed - the UFO is only slightly faster than the birds in flight. If the object was really moving at hypersonic speeds, then when it passed over the birds, the animals would appear almost frozen frame by frame. They (the birds) would barely move at all, but that's not what we observe; both are moving at nearly the same pace. This may indicate that it's a drone."

12m20s: He says it couldn't find the exact drone models used by the brazilian police. Still, it shows some possibilities, for surveillance.

13m55s: Final comment: despite all those possibilities, it looks like we had 3 UFOs, one after another, with that trajectory...

 

[purpleivan]

Birds accelerate using wingbeats, not propulsion. This creates oscillatory (wave-like) paths, never a perfectly straight line. Even the fastest birds (peregrine falcon) achieve high velocity only during dives, with large arcs, visible banking and deceleration.

They cannot maintain a constant-velocity straight line at high speed close to the horizon. Especially horizontal high-speed linear motion is biologically impossible.

Birds do have an oscllilation path when in flight, but that oscillation is only vertical, so a large part of that movement would not be visible, due to the viewing angle and from overhead no oscillation would be seen at all.

Additionally, the oscillation when flying at speed will be quite small, less than the height of the body of the bird and so not visible at the small size the objects are seen at in the video. At that size and from the partially top down view in the video, that vertical oscillation would be impercetible.

Good examples of the oscillation of birds in flight can been in the video below, which is of geese, seen from a microlight aircraft, flying alongside them, at times close enough for the pilot to reach out and touch them. A good part to watch to see the amount of vertical oscillation is 02:41 - 03:12.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fJhTu-0zmo

 

[jarlrmai]

Smaller birds sometimes vertically occilate a fair amount when flying in what is known as 'bounding flight' they don't always fly like this though, it varies species to species and group to group.

You often see it with finches and woodpeckers

 

[Mendel]

Especially horizontal high-speed linear motion is biologically impossible.

This is argument from incredulity, and we see this a lot with bunk. These kinds of "I can't believe..." arguments need to be fact-checked, with sources. (A lot of what scientists do involves libraries. There is no university without one.)

I grant you that birds in level flight top out at 105mph (170 km/h), but as noted, we do not know what speed the white things have.

 

[Perene]

About this point:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUy1n8fcw_Q


The object seen after 15m33s can also be a drone. The author says it's blinking red/orange, and for the record, this is what I could find about it:

Many consumer and commercial drones (e.g., DJI Mavic, Phantom, or Mini series) come equipped with LED lights that can be red, orange-ish (often a warm red variant), or even customizable in hue, and they frequently blink or pulse during flight. This isn't universal (some budget models have only white or green), but it's common, especially for models compliant with FAA/EASA regulations for night flying. Here's a breakdown:

Red Lights: Yes, very common. Red LEDs are standard on the rear/left side for navigation (to indicate direction) and anti-collision (to make the drone visible to other aircraft). They can blink at rates of 40–100 cycles per minute (strobe pattern) or pulse steadily.

Examples: DJI drones often have solid or blinking red rear lights; aftermarket strobes (e.g., VIFLY or Firehouse Technology) allow red blinking for custom setups.

Orange/Orangey Lights: Less standard but possible. Some LEDs use warm red/orange tones for better visibility in fog/haze (e.g., aviation-grade anti-collision kits). Custom RGB lights (via apps like Litchi) can be set to orange pulsing. Orange is rarer than pure red but appears in industrial drones (e.g., for search/rescue) or mods.

Pulsing/Blinking: Yes, this is deliberate. Steady lights are for navigation (position/orientation); blinking (strobe) is for anti-collision. Pulsing can also indicate status (e.g., low battery or GPS lock).

Visibility: These lights must be seen from 3 statute miles (FAA rule for night ops), often brighter than aircraft LEDs.

So this blinking isn't unusual in any way. And I didn't know there were spherical drones. The problem with these footages is that even if the drone is moving at a regular speed, we can (I'll venture a guess) say the camera used and method of filming (wide angle?) do not allow for details to be picked up (the distance, and other factors that affect the end result), so the drones may appear to be an unusual object, when it could be a regular one.

In the enlarged image, the object really does look spherical, but that can easily be the result of blur + distance + digital compression.

When a small object is out of focus and far away, the camera creates a circular "blob" (an irregular bokeh). This can turn even non-spherical objects into circular smudges.

Therefore, the "round" appearance does not guarantee that the object is truly a sphere. It doesn't look like a perfect one, but more like something oval / flattened / with a front.

In the zoomed image, the object looks more like a blurred polygon. This kind of shape can come from:

- Small drones out of focus;

- Drones with rounded body shells;

- Birds out of focus (though this looks too solid for that)

- Metallic balloons (but these tend to reflect light differently)

Visually, the shape does not rule out drones with compact, rounded bodies.

What supports the drone hypothesis:

- Small size in the frame
- Low contrast (looks solid, not translucent)
- Movement is not hypersonic (I already compared with the birds)
- Rounded shape (fits protective drone shells)
- Light color (common in small drones)

What works against the drone hypothesis:

- Lack of typical shiny plastic reflections (but this could be due to video compression)
- No visible propellers (normal for small drones out of focus)

 

[JMartJr]

I didn't think about any insect, because they are too small.

But you have no way of knowing how big or small the objects in the video are. A very small insect very close to the camera can appear the same size as a bird a bit further away, or a jet aircraft much further away. If you don't know the size of the objects in the video how can you rule out insects based on them being too small?

 

[Perene]

You can rule out being an insect not just due to their very small size, also because they often tend to not have defined shapes, so appear more invisible even when seen from close range, let alone several ft / meters. I mean, even if they were being detected by the camcorder, would probably be more translucent.

The objects depicted in these footages appeared to be whitish and climbed all the way (one even appears to be faster and more Tic-Tac shaped, but that can easily be due to the speed, which doesn't allow for us to see how it really looks like when stationary), I can buy this being a drone, bird or anything else, not a firefly that probably needs a special camera to be recorded (and it wasn't just one UFO, I think they mentioned more).

We can try to guess what this thing could be, due to the footage also showing what we can clearly see as birds and insects, having a different trajectory and size. I need to point out it's not just the UFOs that were registered. (However, that doesn't prove anything, because animals have different sizes and behavior).

I know these footages are garbage (do we have any UFO sighting recorded to this date, that isn't? With no room for doubt? Those that show it clearly, are mostly hoaxes...) and they probably even have video artifacts that can trick us, it's not just the optical illusions mentioned here.

 

[NorCal Dave]

You can rule out being an insect not just due to their very small size,

Not if they are close to the camera. You do not seem to get this concept or we have a language barrier.

Look straight ahead and close one eye. Now hold your finger below your chin a few centimeters or inches from your face. Start with it out of view when looking straight ahead, then bring your finger up over your head passing your face and open eye. It appears large because it's close to your eye.

Take it a step further and calculate how much ground was covered by your finger using some objects far off in the distance, like the ground and a tree or something. If your finger appeared to travel from the base of a distant tree to the top of it, it may appear to have traveled 20 meters or more. But you know your finger only traveled less than 1/2 a meter from below your chin to above your head.

(However, that doesn't prove anything, because animals have different sizes and behavior)

Exactly! That's why you can't rule out a very close insect or slightly further away bird. If we don't know what it is, we don't know how big it is or how close it is to the camera. Again, from @JMartJr beach ball example:

Video, like still photographs, is a 2 dimensional representation of our 3 dimensional world. We can infer where things are in a scene, or how fast they are moving, when we know the size of the object, but even then we can be fooled. Hollywood uses this trick. For example in this scene, it APPEARS that the much smaller Frodo is sitting next to the larger Gandalf. While the actor Ian McKellen is taller than Elijah Wood (5' 11" vs 5' 6") he is not as big as he appears in the scene. The illusion is created by Wood sitting a couple of meters BEHIND McKellen. Even though he is behind him, the 2 dimensional nature of video makes it appear they are next to each other.

We know they are closer in size to each other than they appear, nevertheless, the illusion works. Now compare how we see this scene, knowing the actual size of the individuals, with a scene where we know nothing about the size or distance of objects crossing the field of view.

 

[Ann K]

b) Another comment says the Santa Catarina state police was contacted and said they didn't use drones in there, due to the strong winds from that location

Birds (and perhaps insects as well) can soar in the wind without flapping their wings at all. I'm sure almost everyone has seen hawks soaring overhead. Your "it's not a bird, it's not an insect" is simply an argument from incredulity.

 

[JMartJr]

You can rule out being an insect not just due to their very small size

An insect close to the camera can seem much bigger than it actually is if you misjudge how close it is. It can seem huge if you assume it is out there close to the background. Look at this picture:

Now in this case, we can see it clearly and know that it is an insect, so we know it is not really a giant monster-bug way down the street towering over the trees. So we can recognize the illusion and can "un-fool" ourselves. But in the "UFO" video we're discussing, we can't see clearly what the objects are. We cannot recognize them, and so cannot use that recognition to know the size. They MAY be pretty large and way out away from the camera close to the background, but they may also be very small and very close. You cannot rule out insects by repeating that insects are small, because the objects in the video MAY also be small -- they MAY be the size of insects.

 

[Perene]

An insect close to the camera can seem much bigger than it actually is if you misjudge how close it is. It can seem huge if you assume it is out there close to the background. Look at this picture:

If there's one thing I learned in my life is to never rely on a camera to tell what anything can be. In my previous post (#59), the video after 15m33s shows what clearly could be a drone... but even though it passes in front of it, later going into the background, this is what it looks like when is at the closest distance:

And that is after applying zoom, which does zero to help it... now imagine if this was indeed an alien orb and you had 5 seconds total to fine-tune the crap that pathetically tries to record it. It would leave your field of view before you could utter "UFO".

 

[Ann K]

And that is after applying zoom, which does zero to help it... now imagine if this was indeed an alien orb and you had 5 seconds total to fine-tune the crap that pathetically tries to record it. It would leave your field of view before you could utter "UFO".

??? I have no idea what you're trying to say here. And I'm sorry, but having exactly zero knowledge of the item in question, I do not know how (let alone why) I'm supposed to "imagine if this was indeed an alien orb".

 

[John J.]

I didn't think about any insect, because they are too small.

As @JMartJr pointed out, we don't know the size of the main thing in the 1st video, other than it's not microscopic, and it's probably much less than 1 metre (39 inches) in size (as we have an approximate idea of the size of the road vehicles).

If we are trying to estimate the size of something which is unidentified (we don't know what type of thing it is), saying "...they are too small" to be something makes no sense: We don't know its size, and we don't know its distance.
It is based on an assumption of size for which there is no evidence, and potentially prevents us from considering explanations that might be objectively true.

Besides, the proposed "very fast and unusual speeds" may be only in theory, so not true, because if they are closer than they appear, then aren't really so quick as we thought initially.

Agreed, the video probably doesn't show anything moving improbably fast.

For a given arc traversed in a given time, the further away an object is, the faster it must be travelling*. But there is an upper limit for the object(s) in this video; they are being videoed against the backdrop of the ground, and they must be closer than the ground is.

If (and that's a very big "if") we assume the object is at approx. the same distance from the camera as the birds that are seen flying from right to left (from about 2 minutes 13 secs. into the 1st video), it is clearly moving faster than those birds.
But not many multiples faster- maybe 3 or 4 times as fast? (Admittedly a very rough estimate).

Mystery object circled in green, birds in orange and yellow, from approx. 2 mins 13 secs into video, approximate times in filename-
I've posted them as thumbnails so readers who aren't interested don't have to scroll through a lot, click to enlarge:


And we don't know how fast the birds are travelling, perhaps low tens kph:

Some birds fly faster than others but, in general, most bird species have an average flight speed of 15 to 20 miles per hour.
...However, if those same small birds get chased by a predator or catch a tail wind during migration, they can move at 30 or even 40 miles per hour!

https://www.birdzilla.com/learn/fastest-flying-birds/, BirdZilla website, "Fastest Flying Bird Countdown: 10 Fastest Fliers (Worldwide)", their emphasis. The 15-20 mph, 24-32 kph figure seems a little low to me. The article then lists fast-flying birds, some of the top speeds quoted might be over-generous.
Wikipedia, "List of birds by flight speed" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_by_flight_speed says the highest confirmed speed of any bird in horizontal flight is 93 mph (150 kph) for the Saker falcon, which lives in Eurasia but not South America.

If we give the birds a speed of 40 kph, the object- if it's roughly the same distance from the camera- might be travelling very, very approximately at 120 kph, almost 75 mph.
Maybe toward the upper end of a very fast bird in level flight (unlikely) or a piece of windblown debris- we are, after all, looking down into a steep-sided valley; local gusts might exceed the prevailing windspeed for the area.
If the object is moving 4x the speed of the birds, then 160 kph, 99.5 mph.

If the mystery object is significantly closer to the camera than the birds are, which might be the case here- the birds do not change their reasonably straight flightpath because of the object- then it might be travelling at much less than the perceived (estimated) speed of 3x that of the birds.
If the object is close to the camera, it might be an insect or windblown seed, out-of-focus, reflecting sunlight and travelling at a relatively low speed.

The Skinwalker Ranch (TV series) claim of filming a huge hypersonic UFO has already been mentioned. I haven't found a thread dedicated to it here, but it is mentioned in the thread "Skinwalker Ranch - Laser Beam Stops and Starts in Mid Air".
The claimed huge, hypersonic UAP was a fly (or very similar insect) flying close to the camera.

1. The high speed camera expert actually suggested it may have been a bug or a bird. Travis immediately jumped to hypersonic UAP.
2. In the review session the next day Travis was still pushing the hypersonic UAP theory.
3. Travis addressed it in the final episode of the season, which was a recap episode that (given the content about whistleblowers and the dates of news articles shown on screen) had been produced months after filming ended and after the hypersonic fly episode had been publicly aired where it was obvious to everyone it was just a fly.

I'm fairly sure there have been posts on Metabunk discussing claims of door camera footage showing UFOs, featureless points of light/ orbs flying across the field of view; almost certainly the cameras videoed small insects flying around nearby. Out-of-focus insects have appeared to be spherical orbs (IIRC).

The original claimant/ poster of the YouTube videos in the OP is YouTube user wanzamhobby Drone.
He has made a number of videos taken from drones in this area. I think the scenery and some of the filming is impressive.

But if you watch, there are "mystery objects" in all his videos taken in this area. Whenever wanzamhobby Drone goes looking for mystery objects he seems to find them.
Watching the videos it isn't too difficult to see unidentifiable, fast-moving objects that wanzamhobby Drone hasn't noticed (or at least doesn't comment on). With some we eventually notice fluctuating changes of brightness that might indicate a bird's wings flapping (and some undoubtedly are birds), others we don't.

It is possible wanzamhobby Drone isn't a particularly unbiased, dispassionate or even reliable witness:
For example, one video posted c. July 2025 has the YouTube description
"WE DISCOVERED ALIEN PAINTINGS AND WERE ATTACKED", though I don't think they discover any alien paintings and they weren't attacked:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss4f42s9D4Y


Unidentifiable lights which wamzamhobby Drone doesn't mention can be seen several times, e.g. at 22 mins 55 secs, 23 mins 04 secs, 29 mins 06 secs; I've indicated where to look on these thumbnails (click to enlarge).


At about 23 mins 6-7 seconds a blob rapidly crosses the field of view, a bit like the main object in the OP but travelling from top to bottom

wamzanhobby Drone doesn't comment on it.

Note:
It isn't completely clear, but it might be possible that wamzanhobby's companions are also flying drones at the same time;
from approx 29 mins 0 secs into the "Alien Paintings" vid he says something like "...Ronaldo [Renato?] is also there with his FPV...", and appears to praise Ronaldo's fast flying,

He flew like crazy...

while the video shows what might be interpreted, in that context, as a drone flown by Ronaldo being filmed from wanzamhobby's drone.
Below, at 29:10, 29:13 and 29:16 into the vid:

It appears to travel fast across the scene. There are no visible propellors/ rotors/ "arms". It's a bit like the mysterious object in the OP.

I'm starting to change my mind on this one, at least about the motivation of the claimant(s). The guys know that some apparently fast-moving, initially featureless objects can (after a brief time) be seen to be birds, but if such an object isn't eventually seen to be a bird then it must be mysterious.
And (I suspect) they know that one of their drones, filmed from another, looks like it does above: a mysterious orb (or Tic Tac?)

There are lots of birds and almost certainly lots of insects flying around. The guys are also probably filming each other's drones in flight.

I think they might be passing off anything they film that can't be easily identified as mysterious, even when (in that environment) it is probably clear to them that the "mysterious" things are very likely to be birds, insects- or another drone.
It's like a bit of immersive LARPing. So close to deliberate hoaxing as to make no difference.

There might be an unintentional clue that this is what is going on in the second video in the OP, " "UPDATE on UFOs in SIERRA DO RASTRO";
from approx. 9 seconds to 15 seconds the presenter (wamzanhobby Drone) says, if I've heard it right,

It's a kind of circular movement. It's not straight. Right? Not that straight thing. Right? And it comes out of focus. Right? Because the camera won't abandon all that focus on the background and focus on the insect. See?

Despite several visits to the area, and success in filming flying objects that are difficult to identify, wamzanhobby doesn't seem to have got the interest of any scientists or local/ federal officials.
Why? Sierra Do Rastro appears to be regularly visited by numbers of UFOs, flying beneath the altitude of a hobby drone.
The traffic through the area seems fairly steady. But have we any corroborative reports of anyone seeing anything unusual?


*For a given angle of flightpath as seen from the observer's perspective.

 

[John J.]

If there's one thing I learned in my life is to never rely on a camera to tell what anything can be.

Er, so why did you bring up meteorological sprites, which were proven to exist by a high-speed camera in 1989?
Why do police (in my locality anyway) put out appeals for dashcam footage if there's a major road accident?

Of course all cameras have limitations, and photos/ footage can be misinterpreted. They can't tell the whole story.
But they provide a record of what was in front of the lens that can be reviewed any number of times.

Eyewitness reports also have limitations, some of which are very well documented. And we have no way of testing if they are accurate or made in good faith.

Cameras are essential tools in astronomy, medicine, diverse areas of experimental science, and in military use.
Horse races have used cameras to decide close finishes for decades; "photo finishes". Many sports now use video evidence, e.g. via the Video Assistant Referee in the higher tiers of association football.
Many professional/ specialised cameras are much better than the human visual system at recording very fast movement, or events of brief duration, or recording objects at a great distance.

The idea that a UFO witness can see a percept clearly enough to rule out mundane explanations, but that the event is always too fast/ fleeting to be photographed or filmed, isn't really tenable.

I accept many events are too fast/ brief for most of us to record with a cellphone, I've never filmed a meteor (and I love meteors), but other people have.

 

[Perene]

John J: The grifting is strong with this one... what is really amazing is how someone else reached the conclusion the "UFOs" were flying close to 500 km/h / 310 mph (this is what the article below says):

https://jornalsul.com.br/ovnis-na-s...-que-e-real-e-revela-medo-de-voltar-ao-local/

First, we have no evidence anyone analyzed the raw, unedited file of all his drone recorded. If you edit any of them just once, I think we can all agree the footage is tainted and therefore, useless. Not only it has been tampered with, there's technology that can easily insert anything into a video, and we can't affirm this hasn't happened here.

I believe further editing (or worse: uploading to Youtube, which reencodes the video, degrading it further) ruins 100% the idea of checking any event. Even if I happen to film an alien shouting "goodbye", how can I to prove this to be legit, if I altered said recording later?

Let's assume for a split second those speeds were accurate (they are not because at least for one we compared with how fast the birds were flying below it). What was the method they used to reach those numbers? For the 2004 Tic-Tac case, I saw mathematical calculations for the 1st and 2nd event (the latter, with the footage we all know). For example, if the pilot stayed at 20,000 ft and the object was [X] size, it could be visible and it's 1/6 or whatever the Moon size, and so on...

All the proposed Tic-Tac conclusions are based on math calculations, so it's more or less explained in those terms: if 2 and 3 are there, we have = 5. I am not seeing anywhere for this brazilian case more than OPINIONS. And we all know those are only a starting point for a deeper inquiry, they must be refined to reach the truth.

+++++++
The Santa Catarina Ufological Research Group (GPUSC) was called in to evaluate the video. After technical analysis, the group concluded that there is no evidence of manipulation in the footage and emphasized that the objects do not possess characteristics consistent with drones or commercial aircraft.
+++++++

If that's what they are saying, they are deliberately lying.

So they are forensic experts, now? A drone is the strongest candidate for all objects. What we can argue is how many were deployed (if this came from the police, do they use more than one?) and if it makes sense for them to be in all those locations.

I mean, what kind of surveillance they were doing in there, and if the theory there were strong winds so most likely no drone would be spotted, matters. We can't say, too, if those drones aren't from the person who made the footage, and we can't (if these are the objects we saw) guess their exact shape.

The reason we can't tell their shape is precisely due to the low quality of the footage. The UFOs are very far, and no zoom will help to determine anything. At first I didn't look into this case with more attention, then I saw the other Youtubers attempting to tell what could be, and they make sense. What is really interesting are the spherical drones mentioned here.

They can hide their propellers through clever mechanical design. How is that relevant for sightings?

At certain RPMs, propellers can become a transparent blur to cameras or human eyes. Matte, black blades - against a dark background, they're harder to see. Then, camera placement - onboard cameras are often placed to avoid filming the propellers, creating an illusion of a "propellerless" drone in its own footage.

 

[John J.]

...if the theory there were strong winds so most likely no drone would be spotted, matters.

That theory can be rejected immediately, as the filmmakers were using drones. They didn't appear to have any difficulties operating them.

Where drones are shown in close-up in wamzanhobby's videos, they look like relatively small hobby quadcopters.
From the "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN PAINTINGS AND WERE ATTACKED" video (link in post #67),
at approx. 29 secs into the video- the drone had just taken off from the flat rock behind wamzanhobby, roughly from the area of the yellow ellipse. (NB, even at this very close range and low speed it's hard to make out rotors...)

At 17 mins 37 secs and 18 mins 25 secs respectively

What is really interesting are the spherical drones mentioned here.

They can hide their propellers through clever mechanical design. How is that relevant for sightings?

I think it has a wider relevance in that reports of disc- or ball-shaped flying objects could be human-made drones; we know they exist.

It seems unlikely that many are being used at present: of the 5 examples in post #35, the Sikorsky Cipher (and Cipher II) of the late 1980s were tested by the USN and USMC but never reached production (only 2 Cyphers and 2 Cypher IIs built, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Cypher#Cypher_II ). Similarly, Michelson's Dragon Stalker doesn't seem to have led anywhere.
Unmanned Cowboys' ATLAS UAV and Singapore University of Technology and Design's SpICED are probably not robust enough for practical outdoor use (the "I" in "SpICED" means "Indoor"); the ADIFO drone is essentially a quadcopter disguised with a "flying saucer" fairing: This adds to the weight being lifted, so reduces the payload that can be carried, and the slender profile limits what can be carried internally. I don't know, but it might not move fast enough in the horizontal plane for the fairing to generate enough lift to compensate for these factors (and it isn't designed for horizontal take-off; no wheels!) An ADIFO-type design might be attractive to someone wanting to make a hoax flying saucer, though.

Discs and spheres just don't seem to be very practical shapes for (atmospheric) heavier-than-air flying vehicles using the propulsion systems we know about. There have been a number of serious attempts to build "flying saucers", but they have largely been failures. They look pretty cool, though! (See below).

Re. the Sierra do Rio do Rastro sightings, I doubt disc or spherical drones are a factor.
We know high-speed footage of a fly in flight was "seen" as a hypersonic UAP by the Skinwalker Ranch guys, and we know small flying insects have been videoed as "orbs" by door cams.
Birds/ bats/ insects can reflect light and be seen as mysterious lights in the sky, an excellent example was posted by @Z.W. Wolf in the thread "UFOs Identified - But Some Not Identified - Need Help", birds flying near the light above the Luxor Hotel, Las Vegas:


Source: https://youtu.be/-JyYwNVd91I


Lighting like that used by the Luxor Hotel might be quite rare, but in the same post Z.W. Wolf shows birds spectacularly reflecting light over a residential area of London: It's fairly clear they are birds, but some of the individual "lights" are not identifiable as such.

So there is very strong evidence that insect-shaped things, and bird-shaped things, can reflect light and be seen as points of light/ orbs/ amorphous shiny blobs. Birds and insects are probably common above the forests of Sierra do Rio do Rastro; disc- and sphere-shaped drones are probably rare (and though they exist, they might remain rare if they're impractical).

The narration and footage, 29 mins zero secs - 29 mins 20 secs into wamzanhobby Drone's "We Discovered Alien Paintings..." video (vid and 3 relevant screengrabs in post #67) strongly suggests (to me) that we are being shown video of Ronaldo/ Renato's drone as filmed by wamzanhobby's (or a friend's) drone. The drones they are using all seem to be small quadcopters, yet R.'s drone is a featureless blob of light, not very different to the mystery object shown in the first video in the OP...

Frankly, I think wamzanhobby Drone et al. are sending up drones above a forest, there are lots of birds, insects, and each other's drones, and anything they film flying that isn't obviously an insect or bird (or another drone) from the perspective of someone viewing the footage who wasn't there at the time is presented by wamzanhobby as something mysterious.
The "alien paintings" claim reinforces my view that they are deliberately describing mundane things as mysterious things.

I'd guess anyone else using similar hobby drones at that location would get similar results- occasional specks of light or "orbs" etc., but they might draw different conclusions about what those things are.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Going off-topic a bit, but back to attempts to make disc-like aircraft,

The Sack AS-6, tested in Germany 1944 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_AS-6 managed some hops on the runway but never really flew

The American Vought V-173 'Flying Flapjack' (pics 1, 2)(was more successful, and flew in tests 1942-1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173. It was difficult to handle at low speeds; this was attributed to its unusual shape. Program ended in 1947. Developed into the XF5U 'Flying Pancake' (mock up, pic 3) which like the Sack AS-6 only managed runway hops. Also cancelled in 1947.

The Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar (1st "flight" 1959, cancelled 1961) was funded by the USAF and US Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar. USAF wanted a supersonic fighter-bomber; early on Avro Canada claimed the concept (not the craft they ended up with) could attain Mach 4! (Avro Project 1794 report, hosted at The Black Vault website https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/1794.pdf). The Army wanted an "airborne Jeep", fulfilling the roles that utility and attack helicopters perform today.

Looked great! But it's performance was a bit disappointing; from Wikipedia

The much more modest Westland Wisp (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Wisp) of 1976 was a radio-controlled UAV that could be carried in the back of a Land Rover; in some photos and footage its contra-rotating rotors are hard to see:

Last 2 pics are from film "F 1287 Westland Wisp at Larkhill" posted by San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives on YouTube, 2014.
I won't inflict the YouTube clip on you; poor picture quality and terrible audio (just noise, totally pointless) but it's easy to find (or view via link https://www.youtube.com/@sdasmarchives/search?query=F 1287 Westland Wisp at Larkhill).
Only 3 built; superseded by the similar Westland Wideye (which also didn't sell many units AFAIK).

Edit to add: Of course, there are lots of toy "flying orbs" around now.

 

[Gaspa]

To find out what you do not know, you must first recognize what you think you know - and then test it. If we cannot measure the speed, we can still prove what the object is not, and that is the first step toward the truth, refuting false hypotheses to narrow down what could be.

I didn't think about any insect, because they are too small.

I'm sorry, but you quoted me saying "What size? We have no idea what is its size, [...]" and then wrote the above. Was this meant to be a response to what I said? I mean, sure, figuring out what something isn't is a good way to narrow down the possibilities. But we still have no way of knowing the size of the objects we're seeing.

From what I've seen, they are definitely much smaller than the cars on the road, but, by how much, we can't say. So, fine, we have an idea of their sizes: larger than microscopic, much smaller than a car. So... how can you say they are too small for insects?

After 4m40s, out of focus but closer, an insect. Notice the trajectory is never the same. There's also lack of detail.

Looks just like some of the other things flying by in other occasions. That was the trajectory of that insect in that situation. Doesn't mean all insects move like that all of the time.

If you edit any of them just once, I think we can all agree the footage is tainted and therefore, useless.

We can't agree on that. Edited doesn't mean tainted. I mean, sure, it is always best if we have the original file, and full chain-of-custody information. But, even in judicial settings, that's not what we get most of the time, and we have to work with what we got. You could try to contact the SC UFO group and ask them if they got the raw footage or if they just downloaded the video from YouTube if you're interested.

But, again, I would say that the likelihood of it having been tampered with is very low as an a priori assumption, because it would simply make no sense to edit a video in a way that looks completely mundane. And the little specks flying past the drone look completely mundane.

If that's what they are saying, they are deliberately lying.

I wouldn't say they are deliberately lying. Most of the time, UFO nuts (or any sort of paranormal "researcher") are just very unaware of how incompetent and extremely biased they are, and they report their bullshit findings with undue confidence. Same could be said of the guy on another one of the videos you posted, the one with creepy music playing on the background throughout. And Wanzan's analyses. Not much of what they say carries much weight. "Birds don't fly in a straight line" except when they do. And some of these objects aren't moving in a straight line anyways.

 

[JMartJr]

But, again, I would say that the likelihood of it having been tampered with is very low as an a priori assumption, because it would simply make no sense to edit a video in a way that looks completely mundane. And the little specks flying past the drone look completely mundane.

In general agreement, but will mention there is one situation when a video that looks pretty mundane but you can't identify exactly what is in it would be edited -- when there is a bit where you CAN tell exactly what is in it, and it is a bird/bug/balloon/drone/etc., and you would prefer to have a more mysterious UFO video for posting.

I am NOT saying that is the case here, and I suppose somebody might also snip out a bit where nothing at all is happening and no flying objects are visible, and just post the relevant bits. So a not particularly interesting video might also be edited to remove the even less interesting bits without being manipulative, as opposed to removing the bit where the bug flies up and lands on the camera lens.

As you say, the unedited video is the best!