Fast moving object "intersecting clouds" in Hungarian YouTuber's video [Bird or Insect]

[Max Phalange]

A Hungarian YouTuber by the name of Andras Horvath, who focuses on car and technology reviews, claims to have caught a strange object while filming drone footage.

His analysis of the footage is here: UFO Csobánka egén - his own calculations find that the object is travelling at approximately 1,800 km/h. He has also provided the original 4k footage, it's linked in the description of the YouTube post, direct link here.

This looks very like similar videos that turn out to be a bug flying near to the camera ... except for the fact that it is disappearing and reappearing from the distant clouds. It probably wouldn't be a difficult thing to hoax this aspect, however, for someone familiar with video production tools like After Effects etc.

There is some discussion on a Reddit UFOs thread - the Reddit poster, who speaks Hungarian, says:

I'm not following this guy in general, however as I mentioned his content is mostly tech related review stuff. I read one comment referencing to an older video where he fooled his viewers but it was a joke rather than a deliberate hoax. Also his whole reaction to this seems genuine, he even states that he believes in that we're not alone and he was really not sure about publishing the video (which I understand reading the stupid comments) So I can't say 100% that this is not a planned clickbait, but I find it extremely unlikely. Even the exif data of the raw video is legit.

Edit: the joke video was a on completely different topic.

So it would be interesting to know what else might explain this apparently super-fast mystery object.

 

[Mick West]

except for the fact that it is disappearing and reappearing from the distant clouds.

It's not. It's simply light and dark. If we take all the frames and combine them (Photoshop stack, Smart Object, Stack Mode minimum and Maximum, combined, contrast enhanced) then we can see dark and light sections of the path.

There are sections where you don't see it, but those are just where it's partially lit, and hence blends in with the grey clouds. You can still just make out the trail.

You see similar, but shorter bug trails in other regions of the combined image:

Which you can see if you zoom in on that area.


And right at the start of the video, you see it enter the frame in shadow, then come into the light.


Conclusion: it's an insect.

 

[Max Phalange]

Thanks Mick! Thorough work as always, and fast!

 

[jackfrostvc]

The original uploader has updated the video and said it was a swallow.
He also said in one of the video comments, that it is a swallow, and that he saw it with his own eyes days later. I'm guessing he means he saw a swallow days later that looked similar

See his reply to the comment at the top linked to here:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x-cVAXsurg&lc=Ugyo5EkqQ9ZTlkgpyA14AaABAg.9pEByORywsQ9pEqKSzAbLu


Thoughts?

 

[Mick West]

The video is being recycled on Reddit and Twitter with an interesting addition. A "tracked" video follows the object and give a compelling illusion that it's a moving rod.

Unfortunately, this is causing people to be convinced it's a rod-shaped UFO, and reject the bird/insect hypothesis (I'm thinking bird now, as the videographer said he thinks it's a swallow)

 

[jackfrostvc]

The video is being recycled on Reddit and Twitter with an interesting addition. A "tracked" video follows the object and give a compelling illusion that it's a moving rod.



Unfortunately, this is causing people to be convinced it's a rod-shaped UFO, and reject the bird/insect hypothesis (I'm thinking bird now, as the videographer said he thinks it's a swallow)

How do you explain the odd movement of the object in the zoomed in sequence, where it seems the direction it points changes.? And also the cylinderical shape

And yeah, it is now one of the top voted threads on r/UFOs for the year. Despite the guy saying it was a swallow

 

[FatPhil]

How do you explain the odd movement of the object in the zoomed in sequence, where it seems the direction it points changes.? And also the cylinderical shape

The aerodynamic surfaces which it uses to effect its change in angle are small compared to the length of the body of the object.

It's moving through good old Air 1.0(TM), therefore it's either expelling vectored exhaust, or it's using aerodynamic surfaces, there are no other options. People would have heard the former, therefore it's the latter. But they're not visible, so the image is demonstrably only a poor approximation to the shape of the object. Concluding this is a rod from these images, is therefore unsupportable. The object always appears to be moving forward along the direction the apparent rod points, and the lighting is relatively consistent along its length, therefore it is most likely motion-blurred. This would explain why the image is such a poor approximation. Everything's consistent.

 

[jarlrmai]

Each frame is a motion blurred track of the object so this creates that rod illusion.

Swallows are largely white under with a small ammount of white on the wing this creates a similar effect to the "plane with no wings" illusion, especially given how swallows wings invert and flex as they hunt insects on the wing.

We are also seeing a white bird lit in the foreground sun against a darker background so its slightly over exposed which makes it bright, similar to some gull videos we've seen before. This is why it seems to glow so much.

 

[Mendel]

The aerodynamic surfaces which it uses to effect its change in angle are small compared to the length of the body of the object.

This is true for most (all?) missiles. Add a bit of motion blur or a two-color paintjob, and the fins are invisible.

Spoiler: examples

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_guided_missile

e
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFK_NG

 

[FatPhil]

This is true for most (all?) missiles. Add a bit of motion blur or a two-color paintjob, and the fins are invisible.

I don't think anything I wrote anything to the contrary. Of course if you have your own endogenous thrust, you will not need as large aerodynamic surfaces, and they can thus be even less visible. However, sound volumes scale with a high power of the speed, something like 4th or 5th power, I don't consider rockets to be even under discussion. I mentioned them only to dismiss them.

 

[Mendel]

I don't think anything I wrote anything to the contrary.

You stated, "Concluding this is a rod from these images, is therefore unsupportable. " Since a missile is essentially a flying rod, it takes the soundtrack or witness testimony to exclude them, images are insufficient. (Rockets motors do make themselves heard.)

And note, in the Calvine case we have a witness stating an object was allegedly silent while two jets were circling in the area, so claims of soundlessness may be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Nemon]

See his reply to the comment at the top linked to here:

It's all in Hungarian, isn't it?
How can everybody understand what he is saying - what am I missing?

 

[JMartJr]

You (FatPhil) stated, "Concluding this is a rod from these images, is therefore unsupportable. "

I'd agree that concluding that it IS a rod is not supported by the imagery. The image could show something else. Or it could be more rod-like. The image is insufficient to allow for a conclusion.

(Side note: "Rod" in this context might have two meanings. Either a long skinny tube-like structure, such as a missile, or the cryptid known as "rods" or "sky fish," which are artifacts of video cameras and flying insects/birds.

 

[jackfrostvc]

It's all in Hungarian, isn't it?
How can everybody understand what he is saying - what am I missing?

Right click and select translate to English

 

[DrestinBlack]

It's all in Hungarian, isn't it?
How can everybody understand what he is saying - what am I missing?

I tried to post a link but can't seem to do it right. I'd be happy to send you a transcript in English.