Ufo flies towards my drone

[sar104]

Look sir. I'm not ignoring you I promise. I don't have that data for you

You don't have the flight log? It should be on your mobile device. Instructions to locate and upload:

TXT log: DJI Flight Log Viewer | Phantom Help

 

[Trackedout]

I don't have that info.new drone , new year, don't remember the date

 

[N017RW]

I would admit if I was wrong. But this isn't dust ok. You wanna call that an intelligent guess then ok . I will shut up

You can't admit anything because you don't know what it is.

In fact, no one does (but some things can be ruled out).

You cannot process this because our brains have not evolved to.
It's not something you'd ever see/notice without the technology used to image it.

 

[umanbean]

I don't have that info.new drone , new year, don't remember the date

The date is on the video file - either the 'Date Created' that you can see or the EXIF data you have to dig for.

 

[sar104]

I don't have that info.new drone , new year, don't remember the date

As mentioned above, the video file itself will give you the date and the flight log will be on your mobile device.

 

[rmb]

Can't say I know for sure, but this time of year I see one like it every few seconds. In my case, I have been able to ID them as a floating piece of tree pollen.

My 2 cents

 

[Kennyv66]

Like all of these reports, it's something quite small and close to the camera.
It could be an insect of a piece of plant matter etc.
Because it's small, it's not visible until quite close and disappears quickly.
It's not as fast as you think since the distance it's moving is much smaller than you think.

I could see it from a great distance back?

 

[RobH2]

This is truly an odd one. Normally you can tell it's a big bug or dragonfly or something. This thing is moving really, really fast and yet there is no motion blur from the shutter speed. Do you know what shutter speed you were using? If it was slow like 1/30 or something, that makes it even more interesting. If was a fast shutter speed, it again is interesting in that no detail is resolved by freezing the movement. It's still a round white cotton ball.

It's hard to tell because I can't download the video but it looks like it "just appears" in the distance instead of coming from way behind. You should measure on Google Earth how far away those houses are in the distance where it seems to appear and then carefully time it and calculate how fast it is moving. It seems to be much faster than any insect can fly.

Really interesting!!!

 

[N017RW]

You should measure on Google Earth how far away those houses are in the distance where it seems to appear and then carefully time it and calculate how fast it is moving.

Really interesting!!!

You should read a bit farther back in the thread to learn how that technique cannot resolve speed without knowing the size of the object.

 

[sar104]

This is truly an odd one. Normally you can tell it's a big bug or dragonfly or something. This thing is moving really, really fast and yet there is no motion blur from the shutter speed. Do you know what shutter speed you were using? If it was slow like 1/30 or something, that makes it even more interesting. If was a fast shutter speed, it again is interesting in that no detail is resolved by freezing the movement. It's still a round white cotton ball.

It's hard to tell because I can't download the video but it looks like it "just appears" in the distance instead of coming from way behind. You should measure on Google Earth how far away those houses are in the distance where it seems to appear and then carefully time it and calculate how fast it is moving. It seems to be much faster than any insect can fly.

Really interesting!!!

It's not moving fast at all - it's tiny and moving quite slowly - almost certainly just drifting with the wind. The lack of detail is because it is close to the lens and out of focus. And you have made exactly the same mistake as the OP in assuming that it comes from the vicinity of those houses simply because it appears in that area of the image. You cannot determine distance in a 2-dimensional image without knowing size. It's likely just a few meters from the aircraft when it starts to be visible, while the houses are far away in the background.

 

[N017RW]

The object's point of origin in the image is an illusion created by forced perspective.

 

[Meta4]

I could see it from a great distance back?

it looks like it "just appears" in the distance instead of coming from way behind. ... It seems to be much faster than any insect can fly.
Really interesting!!!

All of that has been addressed a couple of times already in the preceding pages of discussion.

 

[Phantomwolf]

Ok guys the reason I say ufo is because I literally cannot identify it. No one I know can I'd it. I am posting this in hopes to get to understand what it is that I saw

I have looked at the video in Premier Pro and am perplexed. I would suggest you contact George Knapp, from KLAS-TV Las Vegas. He is a very well-known investigative reporter who also Guest-Hosts Coast To Coast AM. Both he and Coast To Coast AM would have the contact resources to properly scrutinize your video and may be able to tell you what it is.

 

[N017RW]

LOL

 

[sar104]

I have looked at the video in Premier Pro and am perplexed. I would suggest you contact George Knapp, from KLAS-TV Las Vegas. He is a very well-known investigative reporter who also Guest-Hosts Coast To Coast AM. Both he and Coast To Coast AM would have the contact resources to properly scrutinize your video and may be able to tell you what it is.

Right - I'm sure that he will be quite fascinated by a video of drifting pollen.

 

[Phantomwolf]

Right - I'm sure that he will be quite fascinated by a video of drifting pollen.

I would like to see your proof of it being drifting pollen. Also, I would think it should be up to him whether he likes it or not. Also, if he and his team of knowledgeable investigators, those who are expert in the field, do determine it to be a piece of pollen, then so be it. At least then, the determination will have been made by experts who analyse the evidence properly to reach a final opinion without the need to criticize others.

 

[sar104]

I would like to see your proof of it being drifting pollen. Also, I would think it should be up to him whether he likes it or not. Also, if he and his team of knowledgeable investigators, those who are expert in the field, do determine it to be a piece of pollen, then so be it. At least then, the determination will have been made by experts who analyse the evidence properly to reach a final opinion without the need to criticize others.

It's not a matter of proving that it's pollen - it could also be dust or other airborne debris.

Purely from the point of view of geometric optics it could indeed be a larger object originating near the buildings that it appears in front of. And, conservatively estimating those as 1 km away, that would make its speed around 2000 m/s (4500 mph). Quite apart from the unphysical nature of such an object, that's supersonic, since the sound speed in air is only 340 m/s, and so it should have an attached bow shock that refracts light - none visible. And at that speed, with a shutter speed of 1/60 s, there should be over 3 meters of motion blur. Almost none visible, so it would have to be further away than the house behind it in the last frame where it is visible.

On the other hand, videos of such events are common, and airborne particles often look just like that. It would have been trivial to correlate the motion with the wind speed if the OP had been willing to provide the flight log, but I'm guessing that would completely spoil the fun. And again, from a geometric optic point of view the dust/pollen/debris explanation is completely consistent. So with a simple, consistent, commonly-observed explanation, why would you even consider a supernatural alternative?

I'm curious - what resources and expertise do you think he has to analyze the image?

 

[Phantomwolf]

It's not a matter of proving that it's pollen - it could also be dust or other airborne debris.

Purely from the point of view of geometric optics it could indeed be a larger object originating near the buildings that it appears in front of. And, conservatively estimating those as 1 km away, that would make its speed around 2000 m/s (4500 mph). Quite apart from the unphysical nature of such an object, that's supersonic, since the sound speed in air is only 340 m/s, and so it should have an attached bow shock that refracts light - none visible. And at that speed, with a shutter speed of 1/60 s, there should be over 3 meters of motion blur. Almost none visible, so it would have to be further away than the house behind it in the last frame where it is visible.

On the other hand, videos of such events are common, and airborne particles often look just like that. It would have been trivial to correlate the motion with the wind speed if the OP had been willing to provide the flight log, but I'm guessing that would completely spoil the fun. And again, from a geometric optic point of view the dust/pollen/debris explanation is completely consistent. So with a simple, consistent, commonly-observed explanation, why would you even consider a supernatural alternative?

I'm curious - what resources and expertise do you think he has to analyze the image?

You may very well be right.

First of all, I have never said nor hinted that I think it is a supernatural phenomenon. What I said was the person and the organization I mentioned would have the expertise and resources to do a proper forensic analysis of the video to determine (hopefully) what it is. That is if they are interested. Thew OP won't know if he doesn't try.

Secondly, I don't know what if any qualifications the OP has to analyze the image. He hasn't addressed that topic. What I feel I can assume is that he posted here asking for help because he can't figure it out. Unfortunately, he appears to be getting more criticism than help.

Thirdly, I haven't seen anywhere in the thread where the OP indicated the shutter speed of the camera for this video. Perhaps I missed it. Your analysis of the blur at 1/60 sec makes sense to me although I admit I have very little knowledge of the subject.

Lastly, if he is just putting one over on us just to play, then it would be prudent to not spend any more time on it. Having said that and expressed my opinion and offered what I believe is good advice for an alternative source for information, I must respectfully "let it go" as I am sure very little will be achieved by carrying this any further. "The defense rests, your honour."

 

[Steve_in_DE]

Ok guys the reason I say ufo is because I literally cannot identify it. No one I know can I'd it. I am posting this in hopes to get to understand what it is that I saw

OK here's my two cents. I downloaded the video, zoomed in and slowed down the area with the "UFO". Here it is. It is definitely coming towards you; however there's no way to tell how big, and therefore how fast, it's going.

 

[sar104]

You may very well be right.

First of all, I have never said nor hinted that I think it is a supernatural phenomenon. What I said was the person and the organization I mentioned would have the expertise and resources to do a proper forensic analysis of the video to determine (hopefully) what it is. That is if they are interested. Thew OP won't know if he doesn't try.

Secondly, I don't know what if any qualifications the OP has to analyze the image. He hasn't addressed that topic. What I feel I can assume is that he posted here asking for help because he can't figure it out. Unfortunately, he appears to be getting more criticism than help.

Thirdly, I haven't seen anywhere in the thread where the OP indicated the shutter speed of the camera for this video. Perhaps I missed it. Your analysis of the blur at 1/60 sec makes sense to me although I admit I have very little knowledge of the subject.

Lastly, if he is just putting one over on us just to play, then it would be prudent to not spend any more time on it. Having said that and expressed my opinion and offered what I believe is good advice for an alternative source for information, I must respectfully "let it go" as I am sure very little will be achieved by carrying this any further. "The defense rests, your honour."

The OP didn't state the shutter speed for the video - I used 1/60 as a typical value. The length of motion blur is proportional to the exposure time so if it were much shorter then that would be reduced.

I meant what resources and expertise do you think the investigative reporter has to analyze the video? And there really isn't much to analyze beyond relatively simple calculations on the apparent motion. That's just physics and mathematics.

The OP isn't getting criticism for asking for help - he's getting criticism for asking for help and then refusing to listen to the answers, apparently because they are not what he wanted to hear.