Skinwalker orb on security cam?

[Eburacum]

The Skinwalker crew have captured an 'orb' on one of their security cams, and some people are quite puzzled by it. Season 4, episode 7.
Here's a short video from YouTube giving a bit more detail.

Source: https://youtu.be/YzKLAS2iDEY


I've extracted two frames from this video and show them side by side, showing a 'before and after' shot of the phenomenon in question. The orb is the apparently silvery object on the left. The frame on the right shows the normal view, with no object in view.


-------------
Since this object only appears in one frame from the security cam, it is very transient. I note as well that it does not appear to be a perfect sphere, but has a short extension towards the right. Could this simply be an insect flying from left to right, a butterfly perhaps, with wings distorted by the scanning process of the video camera? This doesn't really look like an insect, but neither do 'rods', and they are an artifact of the scanning process of electronic cameras. Could this be the same?

 

[deirdre]

Here's a short video from YouTube giving a bit more detail.

8 mins isnt short. can you give a timestamp? is there anywhere in the 8 mins that they just show the video playing without pausing it?

 

[Ravi]

1 frame. 1 lousy frame. Sigh. Insect/fluff.
Sorry to be so negative but boy do I hate History Channel and their whole crew. Just utter non sense.

 

[Eburacum]

8 mins isnt short. can you give a timestamp?

Certainly.

Source: https://youtu.be/YzKLAS2iDEY?t=106
timestamp 1.46

 

[deirdre]

1 frame. 1 lousy frame. Sigh. Insect/fluff.
Sorry to be so negative but boy do I hate History Channel and their whole crew. Just utter non sense.

in fairness i skimmed a bit (then lost interest as they arent showing the vid..but they said a "a couple of" frames.

 

[deirdre]

Certainly.

thats better thanks..but its not a full video , that is them freeze framing the vid.

plus you need to type
timestamp 1:46 because once i click that i wont know where to rewind too to get back.

 

[Ravi]

in fairness i skimmed a bit (then lost interest as they arent showing the vid..but they said a "a couple of" frames.

They say "in a couple of frames". However, I see only one, the one shown by Eburacum above.

 

[Eburacum]

I suppose it could just as easily be an insect flying from right to left, with a trailing abdomen.

 

[deirdre]

They say "in a couple of frames". However, I see only one, the one shown by Eburacum above.

cause the History channel and the skinwalker ranch guys suck at presenting evidence

 

[Eburacum]

thats better thanks..but its not a full video , that is them freeze framing the vid.

I think this is the sort of camera that only takes a series of individual shots, so the object/phenomenon is unlikely to appear more than once if it is moving fast. But that is a guess on my part.

 

[deirdre]

I suppose it could just as easily be an insect flying from right to left, with a trailing abdomen.

i'm leaning toward something falling off this tree (like a seed pod or whatever things they have out there that get stuck on their trees.

impossible to know direction with only one frame given us.



add: see how these lower branches look silver too because of light reflection

 

[Ann K]

Certainly.

Source: https://youtu.be/YzKLAS2iDEY?t=106
timestamp 1.46

Nothing tells me it is moving at a "shocking speed". It's only one frame, so it cannot imply speed at all. Does anybody know the sensitivity and range of their motion detectors that triggers a photo? If it is, say, a pickup truck with a shiny reflective cap on the bed (or a water or oil tank) it might have triggered one frame. If it moved away slowly after that it may not have been enough motion to trigger the camera at all. And if a detector requires motion, it follows that it also requires time to react. (The same would be true with a nearby insect or with a bit of detritus falling off the tree or blowing in the wind, which might have been completely past the camera before any picture is snapped, which would also explain their comment about trying to figure out what caused the camera to take photos when they saw nothing.)

That's what the triggered light at my back door does, comes on when something like a passing deer is moving fast enough for the detector to sense it but goes off again if they are grazing slowly.

 

[Eburacum]

It is definitely in the low information zone.
It could even be a bird, with a shadow under the nearside wing.

 

[Duke]

Just to confirm, no one actually saw this with the naked eye, only saw it while looking at the video?

 

[deirdre]

that triggers a photo?

it seems as if the foreground tree is moving slightly in the breeze... so it appears like a regular running video camera. although i guess that could be the camera shake of the guy filming the monitor..

but if you det up cameras to capture paranormal activity you likely wouldnt use a motion trigger device because paranormal stuff has no mass to trigger anything. no?

 

[Ann K]

but if you det up cameras to capture paranormal activity you likely wouldnt use a motion trigger device because paranormal stuff has no mass to trigger anything. no?

It doesn't take mass to trigger it, it takes motion. If you set up a camera at all you're looking for something you can see with your natural sense of sight, so they're looking for something that may be unexplained. That doesn't mean "paranormal".

 

[Ravi]

it seems as if the foreground tree is moving slightly in the breeze... so it appears like a regular running video camera. although i guess that could be the camera shake of the guy filming the monitor..

but if you det up cameras to capture paranormal activity you likely wouldnt use a motion trigger device because paranormal stuff has no mass to trigger anything. no?

Ectoplasm!

 

[Mick West]

Here's the relevant bit. 23.976 FPS (essentially 24fps)

Hard to say, I think I'd put an insect at #1. The video is real time, at least 24 frames per second, so it would seem unlikely a bird would be fast enough. Insects can be closer to the camera.

 

[Eburacum]

That was very fast. Could it be a data glitch? Or a cosmic ray?

 

[Ann K]

The video is real time, at least 24 frames per second, so it would seem unlikely a bird would be fast enough. Insects can be closer to the camera.

@Mauro regarding your deleted post: In the original post the guy says something like "I'm not seeing any game, so I wonder what's setting off the cameras", so it must be triggered. I assume it takes video for a short time after it's triggered, so disregard my comments which would apply to still photos.

 

[jarlrmai]

Generally video cameras that are ran all day are low quality compressed video with low shutter speed frames that exacerbate any motion blur. Motion detection triggers can be set to pre-record then save and record if some motion triggers them.

If you setup a video camera looking at some bushes/field etc and run it all day you are probably going to see many such things as insects/plant pappus will be pretty common, especially in spring and summer.

Here is ten hours of such video, during the video many small things flash past the camera or pass more slowly often in erratic fashion.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r8ROxXGXKw&t=8119s


If we follow the Skinwalker Ranch standards of evidence presentation and required Metabunk response then unless we prove everyone one of the thousands of objects in this video are not alien spacecraft then they must be real and common right?

 

[Eburacum]

My suggestion for this kind of cam set-up is to have two, well-synchronised cameras placed a few centimetres apart, to mimic stereoscopic vision and eliminate small, nearby objects. If this were a nearby insect or wind-blown seed, it would show up on both cams and the distance could be easily calculated by triangulation.

A similar set-up could identify and eliminate small objects seen from the ISS, for example.