Claim: UAP Caught on Home Security System Camera

DLoVe

New Member
In May of 2021 on UFO researcher Richard Dolan's members site (I am a member fwiw) a prior site admin posted video allegedly showing UAP outside his home that had been recorded by a home security camera. Here is a link to the footage in question:

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uDqwJq5ucP6JBwQabmeKAH2-nsbxq9ta/view?usp=drivesdk


The following are inquiries from other members on the site and the replies from the OP (I've renamed anyone I've quoted):

Member1: "the lights following in unison were reflections? … not sure what im to look at"
OP: "I wish I knew. Bugs are easily seen in the video and these aren’t bugs. I went outside and as I rounded the corner they took off straight up."

Member2: "They move very similar, but are not in perfect unison. The taking off straight up is the 'Holy crap' part."
OP: "Yep. I wanted to make damn sure it wasnt bugs or spiders though I already knew."

Member3: "The video I saw appears to be shot looking down at a yard since the shrub in the distance appears to be casting a very close shadow and the outside lamp is oriented vertically. It’s also weird that despite one of the lights appearing to come between the camera and the outside lamp there’s no change in luminosity on the lamp and no reflection of the light in the lamp’s glass.
Two of the lights behave as if linked by something like fishing line drawn tight.

Also, I never saw anything take off but I could have misinterpreted OC1’s comment above as something that applied to the video and not to OP’s prior comment.

I feel like I must have missed something."
OP: "No, the camera timed out while I was going outside (Blink 2) and didn’t record what I saw."

OP in response to Member3 posting 2 stills from the video where the reflections from the objects in question don't appear on a glass surface behind them: "Good points. I have done absolutely no detailed analysis using any tool. I am claiming absolutely nothing outside of remembrance of what happened. I never asked to be here and now that I am I have no real idea what to do with it."

Member3: "I would submit it to an objective third party for a detailed analysis. Ideally it should be submitted to a few independent parties for analysis."
OP: "Good idea."

Early last month I posted to the thread over at Richard Dolan Members asking the OP if any analysis had ever been done, what the exact date and time were and what the technical specifications of the home security system camera are but have not yet received a reply.
 

Attachments

  • Front_Yard_2021-04-13T00_51_24-0500.mp4
    2.2 MB
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That looks like spider silk, very close to the camera. Small drops of water or spider glue reflect the IR light.

Since it's just a few very small threads, it's going to be difficult to see if you are expecting something larger when inspecting the camera.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
It looks to me as if it is a reflection of lights within the house or yard, reflected in something like plexiglass that is being moved and flexed. The bottom light is pulsing in rhythm with the slight clicking sound we can hear continuously, much like a turn signal on an automobile or a flashing emergency light in the home. At the very end of the clip it also passes in front of the tree and in front of that carved object (chair back?) on the right side, so it is NOT "outside his house".
 

Rory

Senior Member.
That looks like spider silk, very close to the camera. Small drops of water or spider glue reflect the IR light.

That would be an interesting one to shoot on purpose: find a spider and recreate it with an IR camera and add it to the library in case one like this pops up again in the future.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
That looks like spider silk, very close to the camera. Small drops of water or spider glue reflect the IR light.

Since it's just a few very small threads, it's going to be difficult to see if you are expecting something larger when inspecting the camera.
Indeed. Also, they are very close to the camera and thus out of focus, becoming "orbs".
I see other ones flying around, quite obviously bugs.
 

DLoVe

New Member
It looks to me as if it is a reflection of lights within the house or yard, reflected in something like plexiglass that is being moved and flexed. The bottom light is pulsing in rhythm with the slight clicking sound we can hear continuously, much like a turn signal on an automobile or a flashing emergency light in the home. At the very end of the clip it also passes in front of the tree and in front of that carved object (chair back?) on the right side, so it is NOT "outside his house".
That was my initial impression of it as well: a reflection, possibly on the inside of the window. What bothers me is that there appears to be an constant spatial relationship between the two lights on the right even though they distort somewhat during the video. I find myself wondering if they could be reflections of overhead lights inside the house on something like you suggested. Maybe two separate sheets in order to account for the movement of the light on the left?

Another interesting thing is the changing shape of the light on the left as it corresponds to the movement of the two lights on the right. Generally it assumes the shape of a kidney bean with the concave side facing the direction of travel.

Here's a screen grab at the 0:40 second mark where the lights have been moving to the right:
frontyard_040.JPG Shortly after but still within the 0:40 second mark they start to move to the left and the leftmost light takes on this shape:
frontyard_040_2.JPG
At around the 0:42 second mark the leftmost light changes shape again, preceding the change in direction of the other two lights:
frontyard_042.JPG
It feels at times like the lights are almost connected by something elastic.

I believe the object on the right is an outside lamp. The constant clicking sound may be the second hand of a clock.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
@DLoVe
Here's a screen grab, enlarged, at 44 seconds, where the bottom light actually comes in front of the object on the right just after it has crossed in front of the trees. The middle light also passes in front of the object, then they all "zoom off".
522EEA7F-27E6-4FFF-B69F-09830DAEB171.jpeg
 

Vattic

New Member
They also appear to be in front of the trees and whatever is in the right hand corner of the images.

02.JPG
01.JPG
Just two examples from 0:28 and 0:44. It happens a bunch towards the end of the video.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The constant clicking sound may be the second hand of a clock.

Yep, ticks exactly once a second throughout the video.

Seeings vids like this makes me wonder about the 'UAP' designation. A lot are really 'unidentified lights' when you get down to it, and even the implication of 'aerial' is sometimes implying far more than is actually there (though I suppose it could be argued that a spider, a crawling bug, a streetlamp, etc are also 'aerial').

I guess 'ULs' (Unidentified Lights) probably isn't sexy enough though.
 

DLoVe

New Member
Yep, ticks exactly once a second throughout the video.

Seeings vids like this makes me wonder about the 'UAP' designation. A lot are really 'unidentified lights' when you get down to it, and even the implication of 'aerial' is sometimes implying far more than is actually there (though I suppose it could be argued that a spider, a crawling bug, a streetlamp, etc are also 'aerial').

I guess 'ULs' (Unidentified Lights) probably isn't sexy enough though.
To be fair it was my decision to use the term 'UAP' in the title of this post but it was also based on the following claim made by the OP:
"I went outside and as I rounded the corner they took off straight up."
The OP over at Richard Dolan Members titled the post 'Life is Strange'.

What I found(and still find) troubling is that the OP has a PhD in Applied Mathematics (which I'm currently trying to verify) and I can't square that with his claims about such a problematic video.
 

Duke

Active Member
It looks to me as if it is a reflection of lights within the house or yard, reflected in something like plexiglass that is being moved and flexed. The bottom light is pulsing in rhythm with the slight clicking sound we can hear continuously, much like a turn signal on an automobile or a flashing emergency light in the home. At the very end of the clip it also passes in front of the tree and in front of that carved object (chair back?) on the right side, so it is NOT "outside his house".
Wouldn't the scenario you describe create a nightly occurrence that would be videoed repeatedly? The physical position and perspective of the security camera would remain constant, as would the position of any outside light sources such as porch/yard/street lights. Same with interior light sources, although admittedly they have a possibility of being moved or turned off at night vice say, a street light. That would leave the degree of flexing of the plexiglass/reflecting surface as the most (only?) transient variable.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
What I found (and still find) troubling is that the OP has a PhD in Applied Mathematics (which I'm currently trying to verify) and I can't square that with his claims about such a problematic video.

In my experience people with PhDs are also prone to making basic errors or maintaining peculiar beliefs. And in some ways they may be more stubborn in defending said claim/belief since they're accustomed to being right and to understanding things other people don't.
 
Last edited:

Duke

Active Member
In my experience people with PhDs are also prone to making basic errors or maintaining peculiar beliefs. And in some ways they may be more unaware of this or stubborn in defending said claim/belief since they're acclimatised to being right and understanding things other people don't.
Man, could I tell you personal experiences like that with PhDs I worked with over my career. Brilliant people in their particular fields, but often not practical in a day-to-day sense.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Wouldn't the scenario you describe create a nightly occurrence that would be videoed repeatedly? The physical position and perspective of the security camera would remain constant, as would the position of any outside light sources such as porch/yard/street lights. Same with interior light sources, although admittedly they have a possibility of being moved or turned off at night vice say, a street light. That would leave the degree of flexing of the plexiglass/reflecting surface as the most (only?) transient variable.
Why would someone choose to do it repeatedly? It would only make it easier to compare several videos to ascertain fraud, wouldn't it?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
In my experience people with PhDs are also prone to making basic errors or maintaining peculiar beliefs. And in some ways they may be more unaware of this or stubborn in defending said claim/belief since they're acclimatised to being right and understanding things other people don't.
My childhood friend with a PhD is a staunch proponent of UFOs and regularly makes addresses at MUFON conferences.
(We have agreed to disagree!)
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
My childhood friend with a PhD is a staunch proponent of UFOs and regularly makes addresses at MUFON conferences.
(We have agreed to disagree!)

I guess there are two different things: a person's "ability to learn", and a person's intellect (intelligence).. One person might be brilliant in studying or learning books, but have little "common knowledge", and vice versa.
 

Duke

Active Member
Why would someone choose to do it repeatedly? It would only make it easier to compare several videos to ascertain fraud, wouldn't it?
Not sure what you mean here by "choose." The camera and outdoor light sources I mentioned are going to function as a matter of course, as are at least some indoor light sources. Nightlights come on with photocells, cameras take photos of what's in front of them.

I wasn't implying there was any "fraud" or
hoaxing involved here. My take was this was a guy who honestly noticed something he couldn't explain on his security system and asked for the opinion of others. Now if he subsequently noticed this routinely and didn't make that known, then there is possibility some deception there. In that case maybe more out of embarrassment if he finally figured it out rather than trying to continue the perpetration of a fraud/hoax.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Not sure what you mean here by "choose."
Sorry, I mean he chose to send that particular video to a UFO site.
My take was this was a guy who honestly noticed something he couldn't explain on his security system
Quite possibly the only time he saw that was the only time there was a reflective surface nearby. I can't assess his honesty from this information, but the fact that the lights visibly crossed over nearby trees and surfaces would be hard for a person not to notice, surely.

Another hypothesis: are these simply shining on his own window due to the presence of something reflecting from off-screen, say, a glossy-surfaced sign posted nearby?
 

Duke

Active Member
Sorry, I mean he chose to send that particular video to a UFO site.

Quite possibly the only time he saw that was the only time there was a reflective surface nearby. I can't assess his honesty from this information, but the fact that the lights visibly crossed over nearby trees and surfaces would be hard for a person not to notice, surely.

Another hypothesis: are these simply shining on his own window due to the presence of something reflecting from off-screen, say, a glossy-surfaced sign posted nearby?
Sure, either is possible, but again I'm keying in on what's constant. It would take an added element, an unaccountable variable, to change that.

Your second hypothesis would make more sense to me if it involved something mobile and likely to move/be moved. A posted glossy sign is probably meant to stay in place for an extended period of time, and would fold into my original point. Consider, however, the possibility on the night in question someone happened to park a car (or cars) in a specific "sweet spot" where the IR light from the camera reflected perfectly off mirrors, windshields, headlights etc., to create the images videoed. Moving the car(s) an inch or two either way would change the optics if the physical location of the camera is constant.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
You may be right, but signs can definitely be temporary. "House for sale". "Special today, 30% off". "Free kittens". "Vote for X". The car reflections sound plausible if the images were staying still, but the motion looks more like something that could easily be blown in the wind... except the trees are not moving. So does that lead us to assume this might be an occupied car? And does a sixty second video correspond to the length of time it might be waiting at a red light?

I do like the car reflection hypothesis because the curve of a windshield could give distortions.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
FWIW, the necessary air movement to move a strand of spider silk is way less than that needed to move branches parts around. This particular vid has a leaf stuck in the silk, which acts as a sail and makes it more visible.
Source: https://youtu.be/7yGnINV0djw


Did one more look around, here's some silk in the breeze with no sail/leaf. You can see the nearer twig moving, but the more distant ones are not visibly moving.
Source: https://youtu.be/QG_r-sA0X1Y
 

Duke

Active Member
You may be right, but signs can definitely be temporary. "House for sale". "Special today, 30% off". "Free kittens". "Vote for X". The car reflections sound plausible if the images were staying still, but the motion looks more like something that could easily be blown in the wind... except the trees are not moving. So does that lead us to assume this might be an occupied car? And does a sixty second video correspond to the length of time it might be waiting at a red light?

I do like the car reflection hypothesis because the curve of a windshield could give distortions.
I wondered about your posted glossy surfaced sign moving as well, but concentrated more on the reflectivity aspect as I felt you were. Who knows, maybe the camera mounting fixture was loose and reacting to wind or vibrations.

Personally I like the "moisture on a spider web moving every so slightly in a gentle breeze" suggestion. It has the benefit of being a temporary phenomenon that goes away when the dew or rain drops dry up or evaporate. That wouldn't take long considering the minuscule amount of water involved.
 
Last edited:

MapperGuy

New Member
I am not sure it would help in this case, but it would be nice if people submitting videos from FIXED cameras like this also included a clip from the same camera taken under other conditions. In this case a daylight clip, that would probably be in color. That would help people understand everything that is being shown inside the cameras field-of-view.

Most security type cameras switch from color to black&white under low-light conditions, which can make it harder for people to understand what is being seen. A nice daylight color image showing this same scene might be helpful. For example, my first impression was this camera was looking up, but it seems it is actually looking down. (or is it?)
 

DLoVe

New Member
I am not sure it would help in this case, but it would be nice if people submitting videos from FIXED cameras like this also included a clip from the same camera taken under other conditions. In this case a daylight clip, that would probably be in color. That would help people understand everything that is being shown inside the cameras field-of-view.

Most security type cameras switch from color to black&white under low-light conditions, which can make it harder for people to understand what is being seen. A nice daylight color image showing this same scene might be helpful. For example, my first impression was this camera was looking up, but it seems it is actually looking down. (or is it?)
Yes. The camera appears to be pointing down if the lamp on the right is set up vertically like most outside lamps are (which I believe it is).

The other thing to keep in mind is the claim by OP:
"I went outside and as I rounded the corner they took off straight up."
So for all intents and purposes we are looking at a video
  1. recorded from inside a room (unless the second hand of the clock heard ticking is very loud or the audio track has been added from elsewhere)
  2. that shows what the OP claimed were not bugs
  3. that depicts alleged light phenomena of an unknown source that doesn't show up in reflective surfaces it appears to pass in front of or change the lighting of objects in its immediate vicinity
  4. that depicts light phenomena of an unknown source that the OP claims to have seen from outside the house before they "shot straight up"
Oh, and the OP claimed that the camera "blinked out" and as a result was unable to capture their departure:

OP: "No, the camera timed out while I was going outside (Blink 2) and didn’t record what I saw."
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The camera appears to be pointing down if the lamp on the right is set up vertically like most outside lamps are

So he's saying the things that "shot straights up" were tiny little lights scooting around close to the ground in front of his house?
 

DLoVe

New Member
So he's saying the things that "shot straights up" were tiny little lights scooting around close to the ground in front of his house?
Yes, although he never mentioned a specific size or elevation. There's probably enough info in the video to determine both assuming we're looking down from a second story window.
 

DLoVe

New Member
Been mulling this over and today I recalled reading about an old theater trick that was sometimes used to project "ghosts" on the stage.
Pepper's Ghost might be employed to create the sort of lights seen in the video footage.
peppersghost.JPG
There would need to be something else added to the setup to achieve the warping seen on the left-most light though.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.

Oh, my, that's embarassing. Who's the ghost facing?

I wonder if this mistake could have been avoided if children were not told the lie that "mirrors swap left and right", but instead the truth that they flip back (where you don't face) to front (where you do face)?

And I know this is OT, but it's reflection-related, and I've wondered how I could sneak it in somewhere for a couple of days:
"In his first flight in 1965, McDivitt reported seeing "something out there'' about the shape of a beer can flying outside his Gemini spaceship. People called it a UFO and McDivitt would later joke that he became "a world-renowned UFO expert." Years later he figured it was just a reflection of bolts in the window." ( https://phys.org/news/2022-10-astronaut-james-mcdivitt-apollo-dies.html )
 

Duke

Active Member
A flexible reflector, such as plexiglass?
How big would that piece of plexiglass (and supporting fixture) have to be? How intense would the light source(s) have to be? If someone used this concept to create the "UFOs," they are obviously perpetrating a hoax. A large, brightly lit set up is going to draw attention to the hoax as it is being videoed. Is this something that could be accomplished in relatively low tech/low profile that wouldn't call attention to someone who happens to passing by?

Also, what would be the analog to the guy in the ghost suit (as shown above in @DLoVe's post #28) if this process was used to create the video? Something solid I would assume? Maybe styrofoam balls?
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Also, what would be the analog to the guy in the ghost suit (as shown above in @DLoVe's post #28) if this process was used to create the video? Something solid I would assume? Maybe styrofoam balls?
Sorry, I was still thinking of the "reflecting nearby lights" hypothesis rather than the "Pepper's ghost".
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
I watched it again a couple of times and I get the impression the lights are very close to the camera. I am talking centimeters here, not meters.

EDIT
I see Mick already mentioned it in #2
 
Last edited:

kasparovitch

Active Member
At first sight this looks like some kind of reflective photographic phenomenon. It would be useful much more information like the place where it happened and pictures from camera and area and so on. The lower object looks like a reflected bulb and the other 2 might be the same from different angles. Were there any suspended bulbs nearby? Hard to tell if all we have is this video.
 

DLoVe

New Member
At first sight this looks like some kind of reflective photographic phenomenon. It would be useful much more information like the place where it happened and pictures from camera and area and so on. The lower object looks like a reflected bulb and the other 2 might be the same from different angles. Were there any suspended bulbs nearby? Hard to tell if all we have is this video.
I've been trying repeatedly to get in touch with the OP over at the Richard Dolan Members forum in order to get more information like:
  • exact date, time and location
  • direction camera was facing
  • technical specs of camera/security system
  • shots from the same camera during other times of the day such as morning, afternoon, etc.
So far my requests have received no reply.
 

DLoVe

New Member
A large, brightly lit set up is going to draw attention to the hoax as it is being videoed.
I don't think it would require a brightly lit setup if the objects standing in for the ghost in the Pepper's Ghost diagram were self-illuminating and suspended with black thread in front of something like a solid black backdrop.
 

Duke

Active Member
I don't think it would require a brightly lit setup if the objects standing in for the ghost in the Pepper's Ghost diagram were self-illuminating and suspended with black thread in front of something like a solid black backdrop.
Self illuminating? Hadn't thought of that. What would be an example of a self illuminating object? I would think an IR retro reflective object would be effective as well.
 

steviemac

Member
I don't often agree with Micks dismisal of everything...lol...however on this occasion I do agree. They are moving like small objects caught on a spider web floating in front of camera. In fact I get this effect all the time on my outside cameras. They are tiny particles of something, caught on a web and floating back and forwards in the wind.
 

DLoVe

New Member
I don't often agree with Micks dismisal of everything...lol...however on this occasion I do agree. They are moving like small objects caught on a spider web floating in front of camera. In fact I get this effect all the time on my outside cameras. They are tiny particles of something, caught on a web and floating back and forwards in the wind.
This could very well be what was recorded but there is the following claim made by the OP:
"I went outside and as I rounded the corner they took off straight up."
So we have a choice between:
  • a deliberate hoax followed by a lie about what the OP saw when they went outside
  • a misinterpretation of what was displayed on a camera monitor followed by a lie about what the OP saw when they went outside
  • a misinterpretation of what was displayed on a camera monitor followed by a truthful statement about what the OP saw when they went outside
The OP claims, as quoted in the initial post here, that the camera timed out and didn't record what he saw when he went outside. However, I think the fact that he said "they took off" can reasonably be interpreted to mean there was a correspondence with whatever the camera did record.

For reasons previously pointed out in this thread I am ruling out for the moment that whatever the recording shows was actually outside. If there is a reasonable argument for that possibility I'll gladly change my mind.
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
There's a source of light here. Proof is the shadows seen from lamp (thick arrow). The two right bright images moving look to be the same reflected in lamp's glass in inversion (thin arrows), maybe the lower one reflected twice. If that's it, now the rest needs some explanation, including why they're dancing.

1666378825119.png
 
Top