Utah Drone video of UFO [Probably an Insect Zip-By]

kasparovitch

Active Member
Both insect are bird are easier to identify either because they're nearer camera or they're bigger than our "UFO" (or that's neither insect or bird, but a seed or something like that).
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
That quite recalls the Utah "UFO", but seen in detail I'd bet that's a bird. At some point you can guess its wings.



At 2:04 you have a second such object, probably another bird.

 

WhoIsJayLamm

New Member
Hello, I recently did a photo/video analysis of the Beaver, UT UFO video. I have a background in planetarium production and writing scripts for science shows. I deal mainly in Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro, 3DS Max, and Blender.
I'll do a video and photo analysis in an effort to determine if this is captured in camera, or comped in; also try to determine if it is the size and traveling at the speed which people claim.

Source: https://youtu.be/o4bqTlwLwwA
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I watched it, here's a precisis

Initial view is it's a composite due to lack of shadow and effects of "ship" air displacement on trees, drone etc (of course alient craft proponents will claim that it uses some novel propulsion/force field that eliminate these effects and the sonic boom etc)

Notices the black outlines (maybe just a sharpening halo?) thinking it could be shadows or something.
"If it were a composite they did great job" most of the video is basically using PS filters and effects to check hue/luminance/saturation of object versus environment concluding this was captured in camera based on apparent experience of creating composites themselves. This is approx 23 mins of the video.

Conclusion is because there were no shadow/displacement of trees and it was in camera it is likely a small, close object (like a bird etc) and mentions the it's a falcon theory.
 

Fin

Member
Against the falcon theory is this: They stoop at great speeds, yes,,,, vertically! Thanks to gravity. But then once gliding horizontally the speed will drop quickly. Gravity is a thing. We see no flapping of wings. Even if we did, and even if it was a peregrine, it would not be able to achieve this speed and maintain it horizontally. If the object was the size of a falcon it would not travel this far, at such a speed, horizontally. Period. The visuals are much more consistent with a very nearby, small, lightly coloured object. Such as a dandelion, which are perennial and grow around the world.

Skip to 12 mins, then imagine it blowing towards us horizontally, rather than coming upwards at us.

Source: https://youtu.be/D6MpqPe2-mg?t=718
 
Last edited:

Max Phalange

Active Member
Such as a dandelion, which are perennial and grow around the world.
Not sure if you've seen Rob Lewis's latest video on the Beaver UFO - but he visits the location and finds there is indeed a lot of "fluff" floating around. There are a lot of cottonwood trees in the area (and, indeed, dandelions).

 
Last edited:

jasonkilanski

New Member
I just wanted to add that the first thing I wondered was if anyone was accounting for lens distortion. I see some estimations on speed and size in the YouTube video, but no accounting for any distortion that would occur in a wide versus narrow angle lens.

I'm at the end of the video, and it seems the case is closed, so nevermind. Great video though.
 

Granite

New Member
As I do not believe objects can move that fast without a trace, and a bug I also find crazy, so it must be added imagery, cgi.
Not necessarily. Beaver is right where a ton of ufo sightings occur, particularly going north and east from beaver. Dugway is to the west, but it’s the only base that would be involved in these kind of experiments. The reason the ufo moves so fast (assuming it’s unexplainable) is probably due to the hologram technology they’ve been using since at least the 80’s.

That said, after reading further down thread, the falcon hypothesis looks really strong. The ufo’s put on by the military are shows - usually several minutes of slow moving, blow your mind kind of experiences and they are clear as day. They leave no question that you just saw some technology that shouldn’t be on earth.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Senior Member
Not necessarily. Beaver is right where a ton of ufo sightings occur, particularly going north and east from beaver. Dugway is to the west, but it’s the only base that would be involved in these kind of experiments. The reason the ufo moves so fast (assuming it’s unexplainable) is probably due to the hologram technology they’ve been using since at least the 80’s.

That said, after reading further down thread, the falcon hypothesis looks really strong. The ufo’s put on by the military are shows - usually several minutes of slow moving, blow your mind kind of experiences and they are clear as day. They leave no question that you just saw some technology that shouldn’t be on earth.
Some of those claims might go down better with a big icy glass of sources backing them up.
 

steviemac

Member
You know what they say about opinions. Don’t give opinions, give some proof it’s a bird or bug. No mumbo jumbo. Whatever it is, it’s actually faster near the end than when it begins, otherwise, someone could point this out. No flapping wings, too straight of a line after turn. I’m going to give my opinion since everyone else is giving theirs. It would have to be CGI if it’s not some vehicle or something we don’t know. Show decisive proof. The posters of the video have nothing to prove. I came here thinking I was gonna see an explanation. Like everywhere else, nothing.
If something can't be explained in this forum, it's always a bird or bug.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If something can't be explained in this forum, it's always a bird or bug.
actually i was just complaining to my friend last night that we have like 200 threads now on planes and starlink. :) (although most of those threads are proven with star charts and plane paths)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Interesting to note the the Utah video is still doing the rounds and popped up 5 days ago on YouTube:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6uNISoNWV4

Currently has over half a million views, more than two and a half thousand comments and, judging by a quick scan of them, most of the people commenting still feel that it's one of the best videos around of an apparently genuine craft moving at extraordinary speed.

The clip in question is actually from a show called 'Contact', first aired on September 18th, 2019 - so filmed while the debunk here was in progress.

Seems like one of the things that YouTube commenters enjoy is that the presenters of the show utilise a "video forensics expert": Michael Primeau of father-and-son operation Primeau Forensics.

Unfortunately, beyond verifying that the footage isn't faked, his contribution appears to amount to nothing of value. To summarise:
  • At 4:31 Primeau is primed to the idea that the object approaches from "up over this ridge" and "comes around and swoops up past us" (weirdly, the word "past" appears to be an overdub)
  • At 4:38 Primeau immediately assumes that the object is "moving at a high rate of speed" (just by watching, not by analysing)
  • There's then about 4 minutes of making sure it's a real video (I don't know of anyone who doesn't agree that it's a real video) which features the use of some fancy software
  • They then abandon the technical analysis and video forensics and flip to good old speculation and guesswork to try and work out its speed
  • At 8:35 Primeau says they can estimate the speed "based on where it's coming from" - only he doesn't know where it's coming from, he's just assuming that based on what he's been told or by briefly eyeballing it
  • There's an interesting/weird audio edit at 8:45 where the words "showing on screen" have clearly been added from some other section of the footage (though that's just a tidbit; nothing significant as far as I can tell)
  • 8:56 The voiceover guy says "the team map out its perceived distance travelled" - note the word "perceived" - and they measure the length of the valley that they assume it travelled along, without having yet ascertained where it started, where it ended up, or that it actually did travel the length of the valley
  • There's zero mention of the more likely hypothesis that it's something small and close to the camera
Really, beyond verifying that the photo is real, all Primeau does is say "it looks like it starts here, the valley is this long, it's on screen for this length of time, divide those and we have its speed" - a conclusion and method entirely based on a faulty assumption and nothing more than anyone with basic internet skills could have done in about 5 minutes.

To me, it's almost as though the 4 minutes of fancy photo verification - not objectionable, but not really an issue - is put there to establish a sense of technical knowhow and cover over how the important part is done in a very basic and amateurish way.

Obviously we shouldn't expect much from these entertainment shows. Just interesting to see how these clips go around and round and the straightforward explanations and more in-depth analyses are ignored; as well as how the presence of (probably hand-picked) "experts" kind of hoodwinks the viewers, when even a little thought shows they're not actually adding anything useful.

(Other tidbit: co-host Sarah Cruddas is described by the show as being an astrophysicist. While it's true she obtained a BSc in Physics with Astrophysics about 20 years ago she's worked almost exclusively in TV and radio ever since, so to call her an astrophysicist is perhaps a bit of a stretch. She also co-hosts Sky History's Craig Charles: UFO Conspiracies with Lister from Red Dwarf.)
 
Last edited:
Top