Fin
Senior Member
In the most recent video, if only they'd psionically encouraged the orb to fly under those nearby powerlines we could've quickly ruled out a drone being involved.
- Get some good headphones/earbuds.
- Go back to the most recent video (June 11th 2025), here
Source: https://youtu.be/2jSnIxZYaiQ?t=64
and at 1:07 listen to the drone-like noise and remember it like your life depends on it. Just like when selecting a playing card from a magician! (or just open two tabs in your browser)
- Now watch this clip from 24th March, which appears to me to have been filmed in a completely different location to the June 11th clip,
Source: https://youtu.be/FQDj7OLRLR0
- We are hearing the same exact "drone-like" noise in the background. Same pitch but slightly louder & significantly clearer. It pans consistently with the camera rotation at 0:17; I'm relatively confident its the real audio track.
- As the orb gets further away the sound fades out, around 0:20, but then as the orb suddenly drops in altitude (and the alleged drone its hanging from therefore gets a little closer to us) we can suddenly hear the propellors again!
- That camera rotation at 0:17 is promptly followed by a cut which conveniently happens at precisely the moment I feel like we'd finally see the drone (i.e. when its directly overhead). Seems like we probably saw the drone momentarily after the camera rotation so they cut that part out.
- Throughout the second half of the video the audio is now obviously being edited, starting at 0:49 where the camera cuts first but the ambient sound effect comes in half a second later. Other subsequent sound edits include but are not limited to: a muting of all audio at 1:11 & cloned audio around 1:30.
The takeaway from all of this is surprisingly simple: The hoaxers really need to buy some better headphones.
- Get some good headphones/earbuds.
- Go back to the most recent video (June 11th 2025), here
Source: https://youtu.be/2jSnIxZYaiQ?t=64
and at 1:07 listen to the drone-like noise and remember it like your life depends on it. Just like when selecting a playing card from a magician! (or just open two tabs in your browser)
- Now watch this clip from 24th March, which appears to me to have been filmed in a completely different location to the June 11th clip,
Source: https://youtu.be/FQDj7OLRLR0
- We are hearing the same exact "drone-like" noise in the background. Same pitch but slightly louder & significantly clearer. It pans consistently with the camera rotation at 0:17; I'm relatively confident its the real audio track.
- As the orb gets further away the sound fades out, around 0:20, but then as the orb suddenly drops in altitude (and the alleged drone its hanging from therefore gets a little closer to us) we can suddenly hear the propellors again!
- That camera rotation at 0:17 is promptly followed by a cut which conveniently happens at precisely the moment I feel like we'd finally see the drone (i.e. when its directly overhead). Seems like we probably saw the drone momentarily after the camera rotation so they cut that part out.
- Throughout the second half of the video the audio is now obviously being edited, starting at 0:49 where the camera cuts first but the ambient sound effect comes in half a second later. Other subsequent sound edits include but are not limited to: a muting of all audio at 1:11 & cloned audio around 1:30.
The takeaway from all of this is surprisingly simple: The hoaxers really need to buy some better headphones.
Fin
Senior Member
To challenge my assumption (detailed in my last post; #162) about the cut being done at 0:17 to hide the drone in the 24th March video, I did some experiments in Blender. If the orb (and drone) are directly above us then as they pass overhead it is, as expected, a real challenge to keep the drone out of view. Hence the need for a cut. But interestingly, if we just move them both just 3m to our right, its relatively easy to keep the orb in shot while keeping the drone out of the frame completely, without any need to cut the video. It's also relatively convincing that the orb could still be passing directly overhead, even though technically its not.
In all 3 experiments the orb is 40cm wide & its hanging 30m under the drone. (I've purposely made the cable easily visible)
Vid 1: Orb is at 7.5m altitude and is directly above us
Source: https://youtu.be/MXhD_m2mHuU
Vid 2: Orb is at 20m altitude and is directly above us
Source: https://youtu.be/5dVpR7H7wzw
Vid 3: Orb is at 20m altitude and is 3m to our right
Source: https://youtu.be/4aZkp0AvZsc
In all 3 experiments the orb is 40cm wide & its hanging 30m under the drone. (I've purposely made the cable easily visible)
Vid 1: Orb is at 7.5m altitude and is directly above us
Source: https://youtu.be/MXhD_m2mHuU
Vid 2: Orb is at 20m altitude and is directly above us
Source: https://youtu.be/5dVpR7H7wzw
Vid 3: Orb is at 20m altitude and is 3m to our right
Source: https://youtu.be/4aZkp0AvZsc
For reference, here's my drone (DJI Mini) recorded for audio at 0 to 400 feet above ground level.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7gmlppLf_g
You hear the drone while ascending, hovering, and maneuvering.
Note, this is just the vertical distance. If it were also 400 feet away horizontally, then you'd get the same attenuation (reduction in volume)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7gmlppLf_g
You hear the drone while ascending, hovering, and maneuvering.
Note, this is just the vertical distance. If it were also 400 feet away horizontally, then you'd get the same attenuation (reduction in volume)
purpleivan
Senior Member
You seem to be getting the way tree and other foliage in Unreal and other game engines back to front. Gaps are not inserted into the scenery, you start with an empty scene and add content to it. Gaps in, or between objects are the absence of something that blocks the view from the camera to whatever is behind an object or objects (sky, more distant scenery etc.). Gaps in folliage in engines such as Unreal, are simply the area not covered by the opaque parts of the textures (alpha masks) in the materials, that are applied to the polygons in the models that are in the scene.
The gaps that you indicate in your screenshots of the video are essentially the same thing in real life. Gaps between clumps of leaves, due to the varying density of folliage of indivdual trees, plus the overlapping of trees at different distances from the camera. If there weren't some gaps like these in the trees, then that cluster of trees would look unnaturally solid.
The gaps you're identifying as possibly CG'd, are simply the result of multiple varieties of tree, of different sizes, at different distances, overlapping. I can look out of my window right now towards a cluster of trees in neighbouring gardens and see roughly the same thing.
Additionally, It would require a lot more work to create a 3D scene with this kind of foliage in it (if that's what you're suggesting has been done), compared with just using a photo of a real world scene as a backdrop and rendering the sphere on top of that. If you're suggesting that a photo has been used to CG the sphere in front of and the maker of the video added more gaps in the foliage by using Photoshop for example, then I don't see why they would do that. They'd be starting with a real picture of real trees, what would be the benefit of altering it.
I'd say that those "plume" type of trees, are just a different variety, that grows taller than the ones in front of them. The reason for only a few of them being visible, would be that they would be the tallest ones in that direction, with probably more of that type out of view, behind the denser trees in front of them.
Starflint
Active Member
Practice leads to true knowledge. I personally recorded a video for entertainment and reference only. Everyone is welcome to watch
Source: https://youtu.be/mg1OUCZrsPw
Source: https://youtu.be/mg1OUCZrsPw
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
@Starflint
Good work, your video seals the deal for me for it being a silver ball hanging from a drone as you showed in your experiment
Good work, your video seals the deal for me for it being a silver ball hanging from a drone as you showed in your experiment
Starflint
Active Member
Yes, and my video was shot by only two people, the lighting conditions were not ideal, and I even bought fishing line that was too thick (should have used 0.2mm dark fishing line). Additionally, if using a large drone, it would be entirely possible to suspend a metal ball weighing around 10kg.
Starflint
Active Member
The restoration is great, but there's a small correction: I actually used a drone tied to a 60-meter fishing line to make the metal ball fly in a straight, one-way line. The drone is not always directly above the metal ball; instead, it continuously drags the ball at a certain angle, flying ahead and to the side.
The following is a shot I cut from my video due to the reflection of the fishing line, but it perfectly shows the approximate angle generated when the drone is dragging the sphere：：
Therefore, the drone's position in the restored animation needs to be adjusted.
Additionally, in the experiment, the drone needs to fly above approximately 100 meters to be completely inaudible, so the fishing line must even be longer than 60 meters
Last edited:
OriginalManc
Member
I'll stop.
I was very wrong. i didn't understand compression and what its effects look like. Before I'd gone through the whole source video frame by frame so was seeing the "muddiness" as @Fin put it everywhere, even what I thought were layer shifts. I'd seen them in News Nation section segments about Skywatcher too so put 2+2 together and got 9. I've spent the majority of this arvo and evening looking at normal videos and pictures to see if I could find the artefacts I was seeing and I did. I really appreciate your explanation and I apologise to everyone and yourself for coming across as an overly eager, full on idiot.
LiberatedPud
New Member
A stabilized version was uploaded to Reddit that appears to show "wobbling" type behaviour. Specially at 1:10-1:20
Not sure if this points towards it being suspended by a drone or not but found it interesting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ykJNl5FiXI
Not sure if this points towards it being suspended by a drone or not but found it interesting.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ykJNl5FiXI
I don't believe in the fishing line theory. It would be much more unstable and swing back and forth.
I've looked at every frame, and I can't see anything. I know the line is thin, but even a tiny reflection or shadow is hard to avoid.
I tried stabilizing part of the last section, and it's actually quite interesting. Would it wobble like that if it were hanging from a 50-meter line?
I don't think it's CGI, and I don't think it's an alien spaceship. I think it's a hoax, but I really don't know how they make it fly.
It's some kind of drone.
By the way, has anyone found the exact location?
I've looked at every frame, and I can't see anything. I know the line is thin, but even a tiny reflection or shadow is hard to avoid.
I tried stabilizing part of the last section, and it's actually quite interesting. Would it wobble like that if it were hanging from a 50-meter line?
I don't think it's CGI, and I don't think it's an alien spaceship. I think it's a hoax, but I really don't know how they make it fly.
It's some kind of drone.
By the way, has anyone found the exact location?
Fin
Senior Member
To be clear,
- my CG experiments were solely to explore the idea of how challenging it would be to hide the drone from sight while keeping the orb in view, during an overhead flyby (with regards to 1:07 in the hoaxers March 24th video).
- The "drag" factor was already covered in my post about the ball tilting. Your demo solidifies that beautifully.
- We can hear the drone in much of the hoax footage so I'm not sure we actually need a 100m separation between drone + orb. But ultimately, the longer the cable, the better, within reason.
Your video is brilliant. Thank you! I'm 100% confident the orb is hanging under a drone. All the clues combined plus your excellent demonstration make it very obvious at this point.
Fin
Senior Member
That would largely depend on multiple variables, including the weight of the orb & the wind conditions. Its apparent stability doesn't actually rule out the fishing line theory at all. We can actually see the ball wobbling at times, as would be expected. Starflint's demo shows how easy it is to recreate the same effect. His orb only swings noticeably after sudden movements/accelerations. That would be easy enough to fix with practise + editing.
This isn't true. Its easy to avoid if you keep the sun at the right angles or if the conditions are overcast. It would be hard to avoid reflections if the sun were directly behind us, since then the thread would literally "mirror" the suns direct light right back into our eyes. But put the sun over to our right or our left and now the reflections would not bounce back directly towards us, so we'd often not see them at all. Stage magicians who work with magicians thread have mastered this art. There are clear and well established guidelines of where and where not to put any light sources. A good hoaxer will work out the same thing pretty fast, through trial and error. A not so good hoaxer can just edit out any parts where the reflections are visible.
Starflint
Active Member
This is the primary excuse of the Buga sphere believers, but it's entirely an unreliable guess without any practical basis. If you actually try it yourself, you'll find that the sphere's wobbling and inertial swinging only occur when the fishing line is very short. However, if the fishing line exceeds 50 meters, the propeller's airflow can't disturb the sphere, and it won't wobble. Additionally, with an ultra-long fishing line and the sphere's own weight, even if the drone immediately hovers, the sphere will continue sliding forward at a constant speed for dozens of meters due to inertia. Interestingly, because of the long-distance aerial glide, the sphere's own weight combined with air resistance means it has almost no momentum to swing back—it will gradually slow down and stop directly beneath the drone. Not to mention, in the Buga sphere video, the sphere never stops moving, so there's no chance for swinging to occur. Another method to counteract inertial swinging is for the drone to immediately ascend and descend when the sphere is about to swing due to inertia. These are all things I've learned from the Buga sphere videos.
Starflint
Active Member
When a drone drags a sphere from a distance at an oblique angle, it is not directly above the sphere. Therefore, using a high elevation angle to check whether the drone is directly above the moving sphere is meaningless.
I'm not a "Buga sphere believer" I just want to recreate to find out how the hoaxers fly it.
If was you saying you can't see the line, if the sun is not behind you, and I say the sun IS behind the camera.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Looking back at the videos, a lot of it is in cloudy or partial sun conditions, so not super bright sun. In this shot from over the city, it looks like if anything the light is straight up overhead. Note most of the sphere is in shadows and the brightest roof on the buildings are those that are horizontal. Yes they are probably a more reflective material. What shadows we can see, like on the buildings directly below the sphere appear on the upper 1/3 of the right side as seen in the picture. Even then, it's not much of a shadow, suggesting soft or filtered sunlight:
If anything the whole scene looks washed out, possibly from cloud cover, which is clearly present earlier in the video, compression and possible post production adjustments.
In any case, there are lots of styles of fishing line like standard monofilament, fluorocarbon and braided, all of which have different reflective properties. A little experimenting would show the best to use in this situation.
Let's also remember, we're only presented with what the German Company wants to present. These are all edited presentations of selected scenes. It may be very likely the fishing line occasionally showed up in a scene, so they just don't include that. We're not seeing a collection of raw footage, we're seeing a staged event.
Wait, maybe we are talking past each other. I'm talking about the new video, it's much more clear and in the sun:
Source: https://youtu.be/2jSnIxZYaiQ?si=pZHMx6YE4wjmzgKb
Fin
Senior Member
Perhaps you're expecting the fishing line to reflect light like shiny metal or glass might be expected to. From what I can tell, monofilament fishing line often comes in a somewhat matte finish. Its also available in different colours. There are more reflective variations, but a smart enough hoaxer would obviously just avoid that type.
So we've got different colours of fishing line, different thicknesses & different levels of reflectivity. There are multiple variables here that make it unwise, unpractical & frankly just plain misleading to assert that "if the Sun is at X position we'd definitely always see reflections from a fishing line". Its not that simple. And, they can just edit out any sections where reflections are visible, of course.
Furthermore, we're not watching sharp raw footage. Compression destroys fine details. Even if the line were slightly visible in some of the raw video I'd expect compression to cancel that out in a lot of cases.
Its worth remembering that impossible flight is within everyone's grasp, given the right type of thread, some favourable lighting, and a studio full of attractive, paid extras/part-time models posing as spectators!
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eG2L8Dx_Y
(this video's explanation is 100% accurate)
So we've got different colours of fishing line, different thicknesses & different levels of reflectivity. There are multiple variables here that make it unwise, unpractical & frankly just plain misleading to assert that "if the Sun is at X position we'd definitely always see reflections from a fishing line". Its not that simple. And, they can just edit out any sections where reflections are visible, of course.
Furthermore, we're not watching sharp raw footage. Compression destroys fine details. Even if the line were slightly visible in some of the raw video I'd expect compression to cancel that out in a lot of cases.
Its worth remembering that impossible flight is within everyone's grasp, given the right type of thread, some favourable lighting, and a studio full of attractive, paid extras/part-time models posing as spectators!
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-eG2L8Dx_Y
(this video's explanation is 100% accurate)
Last edited:
I would use a thread that's specifically marketed as being "invisible." I've got some that has a breaking strain (which I tested) of about 4 pounds (1.8Kg). It's actually quite challenging to work with, as it's difficult to see up close. When it's far away, it's not hard to get angles where it's invisible.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
@ThomasH
Like Starflint said, he used a thick line and should have used a much thinner line.
Also, that video you last showed is the video that to me, and prior to Starflints video, said to me it was a drone . It just gave me the impression it was deliberately being flown to hide as much as possible that it was hung under a drone. They seem to slowly come to stops to IMO try and prevent any swinging. Dont know how to quantify it, but it's what literally made me think drone .
Like Starflint said, he used a thick line and should have used a much thinner line.
Also, that video you last showed is the video that to me, and prior to Starflints video, said to me it was a drone . It just gave me the impression it was deliberately being flown to hide as much as possible that it was hung under a drone. They seem to slowly come to stops to IMO try and prevent any swinging. Dont know how to quantify it, but it's what literally made me think drone .
virtualcrane
Member
Excellent work! I found a couple YouTube responses.
Attachments
It's shot from one of these two spots.
I tried recreating it in Blender, the one closest to the road has the best angle in terms of the two transmission towers (in the rings) and the mountain.
But it's strange, because there don't seem to be any corn plants behind the camera like in the video.
That part matches much better in the middle of the field, but then the angle doesn't line up.
...I said I wouldn't waste time on this hoax, and here I am - 20 hours later. DOH!!
Location: 3.5531325020031397, -76.47690913168168
...also there is something strange in the way the camera points upwards, without the transmission towers distorts - it's like it's shot vertically and cropped to 16:9 in post production?
EDIT: I spent another 3 hours and "calibrated" after the street view. It's 100% in the X in the middle of the field !!
I tried recreating it in Blender, the one closest to the road has the best angle in terms of the two transmission towers (in the rings) and the mountain.
But it's strange, because there don't seem to be any corn plants behind the camera like in the video.
That part matches much better in the middle of the field, but then the angle doesn't line up.
...I said I wouldn't waste time on this hoax, and here I am - 20 hours later. DOH!!
Location: 3.5531325020031397, -76.47690913168168
...also there is something strange in the way the camera points upwards, without the transmission towers distorts - it's like it's shot vertically and cropped to 16:9 in post production?
EDIT: I spent another 3 hours and "calibrated" after the street view. It's 100% in the X in the middle of the field !!
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Your marked spots are surrounded by cornfields. Perhaps the video was simply taken in a different season than the photo was.
Yes the mark in the middle of the field looks like the surroundings in the video, but not the mark at the road.
No matter which year or time in Google Earth, there are no corn plants behind the camera.
See the street view too: https://maps.app.goo.gl/iTtWtEfuVjXKbURU9
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
I think fishing line thick enough to hold anything up to a decently heavy ball, or at least any payload a consumer level drone can carry, at the distance, with the motion and the low resolution video, and the noisy background of the clouds, is effectively invisible.
Here is some examples of 0.45mm fishing line. There is a ~34oz Nalgene bottle full of water (~2lb) tied to the line and hanging from the tree branch.
1x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft
3x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft
10x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft (switches to telephoto lens). You can see the line against the dark parts of the building and very very faintly against the sky.
Next I got the bottle swinging and took a video. Pretty hard to see the fishing line, but it is visible at some points against the dark parts of the building in the background.
3x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft
Ran through
(moderate bitrate reduction)
I don't think the line is visible at all in this one.
Here is some examples of 0.45mm fishing line. There is a ~34oz Nalgene bottle full of water (~2lb) tied to the line and hanging from the tree branch.
1x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft
3x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft
10x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft (switches to telephoto lens). You can see the line against the dark parts of the building and very very faintly against the sky.
Next I got the bottle swinging and took a video. Pretty hard to see the fishing line, but it is visible at some points against the dark parts of the building in the background.
3x zoom with Samsung Galaxy s23 Ultra at 60ft
Ran through
ffmpeg -i 3x.mp4 -crf 32 3x-crf32.mp4(moderate bitrate reduction)
I don't think the line is visible at all in this one.
Starflint
Active Member
Additionally, most videos of the Buga balls use the sky as the background, and the bright sky helps conceal transparent fishing lines
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I have the very strong sense that the camera is anticipating the sphere movements, particularly wen it first dives beg-hind the grass, as i descends in stair-step from r to l, and at the end when it emerges from behind grass. I am less firmly convinced that they are taking care never to see too high above it, especially when it goes high and they look up at it, an they tend to keep the zoom tight and the object nearer the top of the frame.
Starflint
Active Member
Starflint
Active Member
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjaIizQTjY&ab_channel=VerdadOculta
This seems like a soft leak by the Maussan team to divert public pressure?
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Can you add some more context?
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
@jarlrmai Just skimming through it , the impression I got was that he rigs up a painted silver ball under a drone to see if it resembles the Buga Sphere movement etc. It seems he does it poorly so that you can see the net holding the ball when it's closer.
I get the impression, could be wrong, that he shows a poorly done experiment with a drone to basically say , look it's not that.
That was my impression I got
I get the impression, could be wrong, that he shows a poorly done experiment with a drone to basically say , look it's not that.
That was my impression I got
Starflint
Active Member
At around 20:50, he also demonstrated how to blur the details of the hanging net by zooming in and cropping the video footage. Additionally, on June 20th, Maussan will hold another international press conference.
https://www.youtube.com/@maussantelevisionenvivo
As a member of their team, suddenly releasing a video at this time that appears to debunk the drone-ball theory but actually ends up making more people question Maussan's credibility is truly baffling.
Gary C
Senior Member.
They're grifters, not geniuses.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I think it's in line with typical Mausson stuff. He's not trying to convince you, he's trying to convince his followers. This gives him what he needs to hand wave the "ball on a drone" away.
It would be interesting to see how and when he got involved and why. The original videos really did look like a preview for some new dowsing/metal detecting devices likely including "alien technology". The videos originated with the German Company, at least online. The German Company sells dubious devices that they claim combine dowsing with metal detectors. There is a history of people selling devices souped-up with "alien technology", particularly in fields where dowsing is also employed like, treasure hunting, metal detecting and locating thing like water or oil. That may still be coming, but where does Mausson fit in.
Maybe he just saw the original videos and needed something to fill the UFO segment on his TV show. He has a history of doing that, just using whatever UFO footage is out there on his shows. He would often cross-post with people like the Cousins brothers on Third Phase of the Moon or his CGI guy, Ledrack. Maybe this one just really caught his attention, like the Nazca mummies. The mummies were a thing before Mausson picked up on them as was the supposed Roswell alien photo that Mausson turned into a 24 hour pay per view extravaganza.
The publicity doesn't hurt the German Company, and Mausson's involvement brings some actual supposed scientist at places like UNAM to the table. The downside for the German Company is if Mausson completely takes over the narrative.
