UFO spotted from UAV flying over Firth of Forth in Scotland - 30/01/2019

[Harris Crayton]

I captured this footage over the Firth of Forth yesterday while flying my fixed wing drone. I'm unable to identify what the object is........anyone any ideas?

 

[seth.perry.5682]

Bird

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

 

[TDSR]

I captured this footage over the Firth of Forth yesterday while flying my fixed wing drone. I'm unable to identify what the object is........anyone any ideas?

Harris- nice catch regardless of the origins. Do you "monitor" this area regularly or was this a one-time event? I ask because we could use previous footage to calibrate other moving/flying things to determine a few aspects of what you captured, depending on similar flight and equipment attributes, elevation, camera, distances to shore and the like. Also- if you put this out on youtube get ready for the trolls, but follow the participants who are using conventional video discrimination software OR submit you footage (including meta-data) to a well-referred video expert yourself.

If you don't mind...can you give us a reason, and forgive me for asking, a reason to believe you? I ask this because it is not often for me that I get the chance to ask questions of the person videoing. This is a question usually asked to get people to go on record so to speak, but I ask it now because MUFON will not ask you and I am seeing credible aspects to the footage.

 

[Doppelganger]

Bird

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

Looks like a bird to me, too.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Too fast for a bird, no flapping wings either.

Very similar to that Utah video and another from Spain. It seems UFOs are hugging the earth to avoid radars, but we are catching them with drone cams.

 

[Randall]

Too fast for a bird, no flapping wings either.

Very similar to that Utah video and another from Spain. It seems UFOs are hugging the earth to avoid radars, but we are catching them with drone cams.

The Utah video was convincingly debunked here: Faked or Too Good to be True. I think the same reasoning probably applies here as well.

 

[Doppelganger]

Too fast for a bird, no flapping wings either.

Very similar to that Utah video and another from Spain. It seems UFOs are hugging the earth to avoid radars, but we are catching them with drone cams.

Birds don't always flap their wings while in flight.

 

[DROBNJAK]

The Utah video was convincingly debunked here: Faked or Too Good to be True. I think the same reasoning probably applies here as well.

I can't find the exact critique you are referring to, but I checked some debunking videos on YouTube and they were ignorant. It's just not enough to be pro video editor. One can learn how to edit videos in under a week. One first needs to how electronics is processing pixels, second one needs to know physics of light, third one needs to be a master of geometry of 3D scene projection onto 2D plane through distorting lens. Good examples would be UFO photo analysis done by Bruice McAbbie, who had PhD in physics, that would span on 10 pages full of formulas.

Question is, was the guy who debunked Utah ufo qualified enough, like Bruice MaCabie, for his opinion to matter? Did he, for example, had degree in optics or was he just a rundom Joe shooting from a hip? What are his creds?

Guys who published videos were straightforward, had dayjobs and offered original files at their own expense and didn't try to make any money off videos.

Birds don't always flap their wings while in flight.

Yeah, and this "birdie" crossed a mile in under a second, without flapping a feather. I am sure that's called common sense in skeptics' comunity.

 

[Randall]

I can't find the exact critique you are referring to, but I checked some debunking videos on YouTube and they were ignorant. It's just not enough to be pro video editor. One can learn how to edit videos in under a week. One first needs to how electronics is processing pixels, second one needs to know physics of light, third one needs to be a master of geometry of 3D scene projection onto 2D plane through distorting lens. Good examples would be UFO photo analysis done by Bruice McAbbie, who had PhD in physics, that would span on 10 pages full of formulas.

Question is, was the guy who debunked Utah ufo qualified enough, like Bruice MaCabie, for his opinion to matter? Did he, for example, had degree in optics or was he just a rundom Joe shooting from a hip? What are his creds?

Guys who published videos were straightforward, had dayjobs and offered original files at their own expense and didn't try to make any money off videos.

Yeah, and this "birdie" crossed a mile in under a second, without flapping a feather. I am sure that's called common sense in skeptics' comunity.

Credentials don't trump logic and evidence, so it's not sufficient to say that a video is real because some expert or another says so. What needs to be considered are the reasons for claiming a video is either real or fabricated. When we do that with the video below, such reasons are provided rather than expecting us to simply believe it based on credentials. Additionally, the reasons are easy enough for any person with a passing understanding of video and film to grasp. So until I see counterpoint that proves the specific reasoning behind it is in error, I see insufficient reason to change my present view:

 

[DROBNJAK]

OK, that's the one. Thank you for the link.

I've seen it before and I must admit I missed his point because he never broke it down for non experts.

At 3:42 he draws a red line in order to point to a branch of a small bush. Well chosen because there was a big contrast between dark branch and bright dirt in background so that motion blur effect can be clearly seen.

As camera pans to the left, and as expected, small bush moves to the right. If one stops the video after few seconds from 3:42 one can clearly see what camera is doing. Camera is first drawing a few frames of faintly transparent bush branch, ahead of the old dark image of branch, than it is rendering new "forward" image of branch dark and deleting "old" dark image. And this process repeats few times and it can be clearly seen.

Now, back to the UFO slow-mo replay at 5:20. Contrast is still high, which is good, but brightness is reversed, foreground object, UFO, is bright and background mountains are dark. No problems. What is camera's motion blur doing? First it renders faint "forward" UFO image over the span of 2-3 frames into bright image, then deletes the "old" bright UFO image. That is exactly the same process, described above, that camera was doing with branch of the bush at 3:42.

Camera treats small bush and UFO exactly the same. There is no hoax, at least from the angle he's presenting.

That's why I had difficulty understanding what was he trying to say. Am I missing something? Please check 3:42 and 5:20 and tell me how you see it.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Credentials don't trump logic and evidence, so it's not sufficient to say that a video is real because some expert or another says so.

Yes they do. Scientific knowledge is so wast that regular Joe is nothing but a speck on the horizon. From about mid 19th century science completely and forever detached from "common sense".

Logic exists only inside mathematics. In a human world logic is nothing but euphemism for prejudice. People would be more honest to say "according to my prejudice" than "it's logical". If you want just set up one Republican and one Democrat to describe to you the "logic" behind the same event.

As for experts, they suffer from the same problem as the word "logic". Recently l read a brilliant analysis of Trent UFO case by an expert who declared it hoax. But other experts who did the similar thorough analysis declared it genuine. On the end one really needs to invest time and make up his own mind.

Reason why expert's opinion is orders of magnitude more valuable than rundom guy's is because experts bring in more tools, look from more angles. If you have time please just check this PDF to see how much more information these smart guys brought to good old Trent case:

http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf

 

[Randall]

OK, that's the one. Thank you for the link.

I've seen it before and I must admit I missed his point because he never broke it down for non experts.

At 3:42 he draws a red line in order to point to a branch of a small bush. Well chosen because there was a big contrast between dark branch and bright dirt in background so that motion blur effect can be clearly seen.

As camera pans to the left, and as expected, small bush moves to the right. If one stops the video after few seconds from 3:42 one can clearly see what camera is doing. Camera is first drawing a few frames of faintly transparent bush branch, ahead of the old dark image of branch, than it is rendering new "forward" image of branch dark and deleting "old" dark image. And this process repeats few times and it can be clearly seen.

Now, back to the UFO slow-mo replay at 5:20. Contrast is still high, which is good, but brightness is reversed, foreground object, UFO, is bright and background mountains are dark. No problems. What is camera's motion blur doing? First it renders faint "forward" UFO image over the span of 2-3 frames into bright image, then deletes the "old" bright UFO image. That is exactly the same process, described above, that camera was doing with branch of the bush at 3:42.

Camera treats small bush and UFO exactly the same. There is no hoax, at least from the angle he's presenting.

That's why I had difficulty understanding what was he trying to say. Am I missing something? Please check 3:42 and 5:20 and tell me how you see it.

Here's the main point in terms I think you'll get. Once you get it, the rest becomes clear. In film or video the frame rate is essentially the same as the shutter speed. Shutter speed is the length of time the image capturing media ( be it film or a sensor ) is exposed to the light coming through the lens for a single frame or photo. Consequently, as an object moves past a camera at ever higher speeds, the shutter speed has to be increased accordingly in order to capture a clear image of the object. Otherwise it's just a continuous streak.

This effect is used artistically in many night photos where you can see streaks of light along roadways ( see example below ).

​

As you can see above, the vehicles themselves aren't distinct because they were moving past the camera while the shutter was open causing their entire path to be captured in a single frame. The drone camera would have had a higher shutter speed than the photo above, so something like a normal airplane or bird would have been fairly clear. However a normal airplane or bird would also have been travelling far far slower than the estimated speed of the alleged UFO in the drone footage, which has been estimated at some multiple Mach number ( thousands of MPH ).

Therefore the speed of the alleged UFO far exceeds the ability of the camera's shutter speed to capture it as a distinct object. If it were real, at best, there would have been a brief streak ( like the ones above ) across a few frames. Instead, when the video is slowed down, there are relatively distinct images that appear and reappear in all frames, something that would have been impossible for the camera to capture. As the analyst in the video tells us, this is the telltale sign that the artifact has been inserted into the video on a frame by frame basis.

Either that, or it might be very small thing, like a bug, moving much more slowly. Either way, the artifact cannot be a large craft moving at hypersonic speed because the kinds of cameras capable of capturing such high speed objects are highly specialized, with frame rates up in the neighborhood of 21,000 frames per second. That's what would have been needed to have captured individual frames of the alleged UFO in flight. An HD drone camera simply doesn't have the ability, as was shown in the explanation by the analyst in the video I posted.

This same logic can be applied across the board where similar claims are made about very fast moving objects captured on video. Ask: Is it possible for the camera to have captured the object as it is being portrayed? You might be able to do it with one of these:

​

 

[Randall]

Yes they do. Scientific knowledge is so wast that regular Joe is nothing but a speck on the horizon. From about mid 19th century science completely and forever detached from "common sense".

Logic exists only inside mathematics. In a human world logic is nothing but euphemism for prejudice. People would be more honest to say "according to my prejudice" than "it's logical". If you want just set up one Republican and one Democrat to describe to you the "logic" behind the same event.

As for experts, they suffer from the same problem as the word "logic". Recently l read a brilliant analysis of Trent UFO case by an expert who declared it hoax. But other experts who did the similar thorough analysis declared it genuine. On the end one really needs to invest time and make up his own mind.

Reason why expert's opinion is orders of magnitude more valuable than rundom guy's is because experts bring in more tools, look from more angles. If you have time please just check this PDF to see how much more information these smart guys brought to good old Trent case:

http://www.ipaco.fr/ReportMcMinnville.pdf

You've moved the goalposts there by changing the parameters from "logic and evidence" to "opinions". When it comes to opinions, I'll be the first to agree that a well educated opinion is generally more reliable. However that's still not always the case. Experts can still be mistaken. Additionally, logic and evidence isn't opinion based.

The relationship between frame rates and image capturing capability is a scientific fact ( not an opinion ). No amount of letters after someone's name can change that. This is the beauty of critical thinking. It levels the intellectual playing field. With a little bit of effort, you and your brain can figure this out for yourself rather than taking anyone else's word for it ( including mine ) .

Most of the calculations I've seen assume the object takes a full second to speed toward the camera. I don't think it's actually that long. Seems more like around 600MS ( maybe less ). At 24FPS ( the speed of the YouTube video ), the object would show as a streak across 14 frames. But admittedly, there could be factors I'm missing that haven't been taken into account. Maybe downsampling from the original HD at around 60FPS produces the effect seen on YouTube.

The original HD should have about 36 frames that still show little more than a streak, and there should be no "domino effect" as the analyst in the video I posted pointed out. But then again, maybe that particular camera and software cause that effect when rendering, but that's getting beyond my experience with digital imaging.

So I suppose there's still a chance that the conclusion drawn by the analyst isn't accurate, but for now I'll play it safe. I'll also stick with my original impression of the way it moves, which is fluid and aerodynamically rather than almost instantly from point to point without banking or changing orientation. Anyway. It's a friendly, interesting and informative discussion. Thanks.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Here's the main point in terms I think you'll get. Once you get it, the rest becomes clear. In film or video the frame rate is essentially the same as the shutter speed. Shutter speed is the length of time the image capturing media ( be it film or a sensor ) is exposed to the light coming through the lens for a single frame or photo. Consequently, as an object move past a camera at ever higher speeds, the shutter speed has to be increased accordingly in order to capture a clear image of the object. Otherwise it's just a continuous streak.

This effect is used artistically in many night photos where you can see streaks of light along roadways ( see example below ).

​

As you can see above, the vehicles themselves aren't distinct because they were moving past the camera while the shutter was open causing their entire path to be captured in a single frame. The drone camera would have had a higher shutter speed than the photo above, so something like a normal airplane or bird would have been fairly clear. However a normal airplane or bird would also have been travelling far far slower than the estimated speed of the alleged UFO in the drone footage, which has been estimated at some multiple Mach number ( thousands of MPH ).

Therefore the speed of the alleged UFO far exceeds the ability of the camera's shutter speed to capture it as a distinct object. If it were real, at best, there would have been a brief streak ( like the ones above ) across a single frame or two. Instead, when the video is slowed down, there are relatively distinct images that appear and reappear in all frames, something that would have been impossible for the camera to capture. As the analyst in the video tells us, this is the telltale sign that the artifact has been inserted into the video on a frame by frame basis.

Either that, or it might be very small thing, like a bug, moving much more slowly. Either way, the artifact cannot be a large craft moving at hypersonic speed because the kinds of camera capable of capturing such high speed objects are highly specialized, with frame rates up in the neighborhood of 21,000 frames per second. That's what would have been needed to have captured individual frames of the alleged UFO in flight. An HD drone camera simply doesn't have the ability. This same logic can be applied across the board where similar claims are made about very fast moving objects captured on video. Ask: Is it possible for the camera to have captured the object as it is being portrayed?

Hmm, thank you for explanation. That is an excellent point. Somewhere in the original video they said footage was shot at 60fps If that UFO was moving at 9000mph, or whatever, white smudge would necessarily need to be a very long line.

Yeah. I never listen the part of video before the end because people ask you to like and subscribe. And he left explanation for the last tree seconds. He should explained his point somewhere in the middle.

It might be an idea to actually delete mine and your relevant posts so that we prevent future hoaxes from getting wise.

 

[Randall]

Hmm, thank you for explanation. That is an excellent point. Somewhere in the original video they said footage was shot at 60fps If that UFO was moving at 9000mph, or whatever, white smudge would necessarily need to be a very long line.

Yeah. I never listen the part of video before the end because people ask you to like and subscribe. And he left explanation for the last tree seconds. He should explained his point somewhere in the middle.

It might be an idea to actually delete mine and your relevant posts so that we prevent future hoaxes from getting wise.

Not to worry. It's okay to explore these issues here. It's what the forum was meant for.