Claim: UAP filmed by pilot over Monterrey, Mexico July 2023

[persephone]

Hello, long time lurker here, first time making a post because I couldn't find a topic on this particular video. Sorry if this is a repeat post.

This clip was posted to Reddit a few days ago. It shows a clip played on Mexican TV apparently recorded by a pilot coming in to land at Monterrey airport on July 5th 2023.

The relevant part of the video is right at the start (around 10s in), and appears to show a black object darting around above the cloud level. It leaves some kind of trail behind it and zig-zags back on itself several times. According to the pilot it was keeping pace with the plane, though it looks quite a bit lower in altitude to me. The movement looks similar to an insect buzzing around, except it appears to be much larger (I think it's unlikely there are insects close to the plane at that altitude but I haven't looked deeply into this).


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17ixoqa/black_tictac_like_object_recorded_by_pilot_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb


Screenshot of object:

The Reddit post described the shape as a tic-tac but it doesn't look very distinctly elongated to me.

This is roughly the direction of travel of the plane:



What do you think can explain this recording? I don't see the object casting a shadow on the clouds below but that might be because of the angle of the recording.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mick West]

From Reddit:

Article:

5 days ago
this sounds possible but far fetched to be until I see some videos with stabilization artifacts like it. I have only seen these: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...c-ufos-moving-erratically-behind-trees.11556/

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17ixoqa/comment/k717n8d/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3Conscious_Walk_4304

Linking to this video by me:


A stabilization artifact is where the scene being stabilized (in my instance, a tree) is a very different distance to some visually small thing (a plane). The larger scene is stable, but the small thing is not.

In the UFO example here, the black speck is likely on the window, and the camera is stabilizing on the ground. So the speck jumps around.

 

[Mick West]

Here's a quick demonstration.


It's some tape stuck to the window. The effect would be much better from a plane, with the background moving. A clean window would also improve things!

In the OP video, there might be other bits of window dirt visible, but unfortunately the low quality video does not show anything.

 

[Mick West]

Example from plane window:

Source: https://youtu.be/9pAccHIZt_M?si=479J1QGEQ0FaUBMg&t=585


This is a dirty window, so you see a lot of motion. But imagine there was only one large speck of dirt.

 

[Mendel]

The big question with these types of report is always, did the observer notice the object at the time? did anyone else notice it? or was it only discovered when the footage was reviewed later?
If nobody saw it at the time, that's usually a clue that it may be a camera artifact, or something small and mundane that went unnoticed.

Note that clip is zoomed in via editing, the actual camera motion could be a lot less than it seems.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The stabilization artifact is something that isn't easy to understand. This video was my introduction to stabilization artifacts as documented here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...gly-lines-and-dancing-dots.12802/#post-285076



In this case it was sensor reflections that were jumping around. I knew what lights were causing which reflection (or flare). Here's a key to understanding that: They are upside down and mirror imaged.

I was able to figure that out. But I had no idea at all why they were jumping around in sync with each other.

The simplest way to think of it it: The video is stabilized, but the artifacts are jumping around in sync with the way the camera body is really moving. The camera is waving around because it's hard to keep your hands steady. The camera helps you out by stabilizing the picture. It moves the lens to do that. But other things like sensor flares and specks on the window will look like they're waving around.

The way the artifacts are moving in this video = the way the camera body is moving
The way the interesting part of the picture is moving = the way the lens is moving.

Within limits of course. It's actually a complex geometry. But let's go with simple, first.

Not well known and not easy to understand. I've been around cameras my whole life and I couldn't figure it out.

What I haven't been around are phone cameras that stabilize the video. That's new.



EDIT: I said the lens moves. There are different methods. And now we're getting complicated again. So disregard if you want to keep it simple. The basic idea is still there.

https://skylum.com/blog/what-is-optical-image-stabilization

The most common type of optical image stabilizer uses a gyroscope to detect camera motion and then moves the lens elements or sensor in the opposite direction to compensate for the movement. This also helps reduce blur caused by handshakes.

Additionally, miniature motor components (also known as housed motors) can be incorporated into imaging devices to provide OIS. Some camera manufacturers also use a hybrid approach, combining OIS with digital stabilization (DIS) to provide even greater stability and correct the effects of more extreme camera.

There are two primary approaches to OIS in compact camera modules: lens shift and module tilt. The first method involves adjusting the position of the lens, while the second entails changing the location of the module itself. Both approaches help reduce the effects of camera shake and other forms of motion blur, resulting in sharper and more stable images.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

In the case of a speck on the window, parallax effects come into play. The speck is close, the landscape is far.

Parallax can do surprising things even for people who are familiar with it:



Here you've got stuff really close, medium distance and far away.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The big question with these types of report is always, did the observer notice the object at the time? did anyone else notice it? or was it only discovered when the footage was reviewed later?
If nobody saw it at the time, that's usually a clue that it may be a camera artifact, or something small and mundane that went unnoticed.

Like. But in this case the videographer was looking at his phone screen, not at the real life view. He noticed the "UFO" at the time. That's another way this can happen. During the event. Not just after the event.

 

[persephone]

Example from plane window:

Source: https://youtu.be/9pAccHIZt_M?si=479J1QGEQ0FaUBMg&t=585


This is a dirty window, so you see a lot of motion. But imagine there was only one large speck of dirt.

Thank you! I've never seen this effect before but it makes a lot of sense. In the pilot clip the object seems to leave a trail of some kind - is that common with these artifacts as well?

 

[persephone]

Like. But in this case the videographer was looking at his phone screen, not at the real life view. He noticed the "UFO" at the time. That's another way this can happen. During the event. Not just after the event.

The big question with these types of report is always, did the observer notice the object at the time? did anyone else notice it? or was it only discovered when the footage was reviewed later?
If nobody saw it at the time, that's usually a clue that it may be a camera artifact, or something small and mundane that went unnoticed.

Note that clip is zoomed in via editing, the actual camera motion could be a lot less than it seems.

According to the pilot he did notice the object at the time, but it seems like he only saw it on the screen and not through the window - he says he noticed it when he zoomed out.