New UAP footage: Miami Air and Sea show

neo_seoul

New Member
Hello,

Not sure if someone has been tracking this already, but early today a new video has been posted on Twitter of an unidentified object appearing in the frame and seemingly shooting across the frame quite fast.
The video is a slow-mo footage of a low altitude slow passage of a military aircraft during the Hyundai Air & Sea show in Miami.


Source: https://twitter.com/sugarmanspeaks/status/1530721297205960704?s=21&t=8H-4vdgGVF6rEpz_0j0Low


There is also an ongoing thread on Reddit r/UFOs about it:

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/v01jnc/new_ufo_uap_filmed_with_good_quality_in/


In the sub-reddit someone generated a 0.25x slowed down version:
https://files.catbox.moe/inchqa.mp4


EDIT: Alleged additional footage of the same object:

Source: https://twitter.com/528vibes/status/1530752111398506496?s=20&t=9pwzGVaohM3GyqfjjhtsCg


You can see the object appearing around 1.5 s into the clip from the water (although appears just out of frame) on the bottom right and shooting up across towards the top left.

Given the point of origin between the horizon and the shore, and the other visual reference points, it's unlikely to be a camera artefact or a small object close to the camera (e.g. dust, bug).
And to be honest given the speed relative to everything else and the slow-mo nature of the footage, this must have been VERY fast and relatively close to the shore, so not likely a balloon.

I also thought about a bird coming out of the water, but that seems to be way too fast? I even considered if the video could be in reverse, and the bird be actually diving into the water, but it doesn't appear to be a reversed clip.
The best would be if the OP on Twitter could release the raw file from his phone, probably filmed with an iPhone's slow-mo feature.

Other than CGI (which at least to me doesn't seem likely), what other mundane explanations could it have?

Can we do a bit of analysis? It should be relatively easy to figure out the size of the object given the many comparison references in the frame.

EDIT2: Sorry, just noticed OP posted a non-slowmo version of the video on Twitter, from this version the possibility of an insect/bug flying in front of the camera seems more plausible:
Source: https://twitter.com/SugarmanSpeaks/status/1530891091343552512?s=20&t=TumWvxrUhQGIcUW1qCQR5w
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Senior Member
Given the point of origin between the horizon and the shore
But if the object appears from 'just out of frame', as you say (which is correct as far as I can see), we do not actually see the 'point of origin'. It could well be closer to the camera than the other objects in view, such as people's heads. It appears smaller than the closest people's heads, so if it is actually closer to the camera, it must be very small indeed. This would make an insect of some kind, e.g. a butterfly, a good candidate.

Judging by the comment of the photographer (David Sugarman), he didn't see it emerge from the water either. He seems to be relying on what he sees in the video when reviewing it later: otherwise why say 'it looks like...' and not say what he actually saw at the time? If he was looking through (or at) the viewfinder, he probably had a restricted field of view for the scene itself.

Also, if it was really a large object emerging at great speed from the water beyond the spectators, they seem remarkably blasé.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
It's like the Utah video all over again small and close and relatively slow, or large and far away and inhumanly fast.

Looks like no-one saw it at the time, so most likely a small object close to the camera.

I reckon it's probably a dragonfly, maybe a bird, but more likely an insect.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Beach Bug Combined light dark track.png
This is the track stabilized. There seems to be both periodic brightness changes, and matching periodic heading changes, consistent with something the flies by flapping wings, like a bird or bug.

The speed seems more consistent with a bug.
 

MapperGuy

New Member
What I find odd is that none of the people in the water seem to notice this second object or turn their heads to follow it. Which would suggest that the object is behind them, just in front of the cameraperson.
 

jackfrostvc

Senior Member
Seems to be a bug closer to the camera, if it were a bird flying off the ocean, it would be traveling too fast to be a bird IMO
I think the bug started in a spot that looked like it was on the ocean, but really was close to the camera
 

Lewis Doherty

New Member
That is what a bird looks like when it is flapping its wings and the lighter underside comes into view as the wings come up and then the darker top comes down. It appears to be something blinking.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
That is what a bird looks like when it is flapping its wings and the lighter underside comes into view as the wings come up and then the darker top comes down. It appears to be something blinking.
Yeah I think the consensus is that given the video is in slo-mo the object likely moves too fast for it to be a bird.

But I don't think we have enough info to plot the range of size/distance/speed, we'd need original video and full camera specs including any optical/digital zoom.

A dragon fly with with its wings catching the sun at certain angles feels like a better fit to me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But I don't think we have enough info to plot the range of size/distance/speed, we'd need original video and full camera specs including any optical/digital zoom.

Here's one sent to me by the creator (attached.) Athought it seems to be trimmed in-camera, resulting in some loss of EXIF data. The camera is an iPhone XS Max (second generation iPhone 10)
 

Attachments

  • trim_EBE32BF7-5CA1-4787-912C-B1258069E7BD.MOV
    4.5 MB
  • IMG_3176.MOV
    2 MB

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This image is stretched horizontally to show the periodic "flapping" and corresponding change in flight direction.

2022-05-30_08-24-53.jpg
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
I'm still going to stick with bug for now. Maybe something with a fatter body than a dragonfly, such as this beetle.




But there's something else to consider: Flying spinner toys. They're not remote controlled, but they do return.

81pNawZ1d5L._AC_SL1500_.jpg


There are many types.
https://www.findthisbest.com/best-flying-spinner-toys
Choosing the best flying spinner toy can be difficult as there are so many considerations, such as Junywell, Magtoyballu, KANINO, FingToy, Aero Props. We've selected our 23 Best Flying Spinner Toys after extensive research and designed a buying guide to help you pick the best option.

Our experts tested a variety of flying spinner toys at all prices from $13 to $36 in the market.

Most have LEDs on them but I would think they're too dim to be seen by a camera in daylight. The fan blades/spinning body might show up as seen in Mick's stabilized video above.

Check this video and see what you think.
 

Attachments

  • 81xoCwTe0XL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
    81xoCwTe0XL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
    272.1 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:

Magnetic Bow

New Member
Hello everyone,my english is not good,Personally Speaking:

Firstly,the previous object is probably not a bird,because the birds usually dont wild dash for the airplane actively;

Secondly,the shape of the previous object is probably not a bird,furthermore,it seems has "metallic luster";

Thirdly,the object's speed is too high,maybe someone can calculate the speed accurately,the maximum speed of a seagull usually is 170km/h;

Finally,The object finally appeared in the video seems to be different from the object previously moved up from sea level, the final object has a V-notch and a flat black base, and the previous object seems to have a hemispherical top.

Welcome to discuss :)

2.jpg1.jpeg
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.


Stabilized on the object, the "flapping" seems more like "spinning"

Due to the periodic wobbling I was initially wondering if it was something like a cheap quadcopter with poor stabilisation, as the lateral periodicity could also be explained by associated acccidental thrust vectoring. However, the stabilised version does not strengthen that hypothesis.
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
Due to the periodic wobbling I was initially wondering if it was something like a cheap quadcopter with poor stabilisation, as the lateral periodicity could also be explained by associated acccidental thrust vectoring. However, the stabilised version does not strengthen that hypothesis.

I wouldn't rule out flapping wings with some wagon-wheel effect from the framerate.

 

Mendel

Senior Member.
What I find odd is that none of the people in the water seem to notice this second object or turn their heads to follow it. Which would suggest that the object is behind them, just in front of the cameraperson.
or it suggests that it's a common object

remember, the camera operator didn't notice it at the time, either

Please note I'm not ruling out it being an alien chocolate wrapper.
could be from Mars?
 

ventsyv

New Member
Well, whatever it is, it's tiny. I cropped an image from the video. On it the airplane is ~ 60 pixels long, the UFO is ~6 pixels.
If we assume that the airplane is 15 meters long, it means the UFO is no more than 1.5 meters. Kind of consistent with a seagull.
Obviously it could be way smaller if it's closer to the camera.


Screen Shot 2022-06-09 at 10.07.41 AM.png
 

ventsyv

New Member
this is only true if they are at the same distance
Obviously. But in this case it appears the distances are comparable so it's probably in the ballpark.

The angular distance of the object is low, if we assume linear approximation, if the UFO is 1/2 the distance between the observer and the plane, it will be 75 cm. Still a bird. Half the distance again - 37 cm (~ 10 inches).

To me it seems more consistent with a bird. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Obviously. But in this case it appears the distances are comparable so it's probably in the ballpark.

The angular distance of the object is low, if we assume linear approximation, if the UFO is 1/2 the distance between the observer and the plane, it will be 75 cm. Still a bird. Half the distance again - 37 cm (~ 10 inches).

To me it seems more consistent with a bird. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

You are going to have to demonstrate how "it appears the distances are comparable"
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
You are going to have to demonstrate how "it appears the distances are comparable"
To eyeball it, it appears to be much closer than the plane. I suppose you could set "comparable distance to the plane" as a maximum distance, and thus derive a maximum possible size, with the minimum distance being a few feet and the minimum size being in the housefly to horsefly range?
 

ventsyv

New Member
To eyeball it, it appears to be much closer than the plane. I suppose you could set "comparable distance to the plane" as a maximum distance, and thus derive a maximum possible size, with the minimum distance being a few feet and the minimum size being in the housefly to horsefly range?

The color variability seems to suggest wings. The estimated size is also in that range, but obviously it ascend rate would be too high for a bird.
Is there a version of this video that has not been manipulated?
 

ventsyv

New Member
I found this video of the air show that shows a very similar flyover.
Source: https://youtu.be/5aCkY98aayY?t=1711

I can't spot the UFO (it could've happened on a different stretch of beach) but it give you a good idea how far those planes are.
The airshow took 2 days, May 28th and 29th. So it's possible they did the same flyover on both days.
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Active Member
The color variability seems to suggest wings. The estimated size is also in that range, but obviously it ascend rate would be too high for a bird.
Looking at the whole thing the object (OK, let's call it "the bird") is getting visibly larger as it ascends. (That can clearly be seen in @Mick West posts number 4 and 12.) In other words, it's not so much ascending vertically as it is angling up and toward the photographer. It's flying over the cameraman, up and out of the picture frame faster than it would if it were in a vertical plane so its "ascend rate" isn't known. It may even be zero. It may indeed be negative, coming in to land behind the spectators.
 

Latest posts

Top