[contact]

[legal & copyright]
Introduction On Data
Reliability		 Analysis
Methodologies		 A Scientific WFM Observatory Explanatory
Hypotheses		 Conclusion

Available Video Footage
 Trollstigen1 Jul 2018
YouTube: adRsfMwpnQk★★☆☆☆
 Queen Valley (AZ)5 Apr 2018
YouTube: 4KeZ7Pzbd9U★★★★☆
 Suchá14 Oct 2017
YouTube: lnIUh2bPxu0★★★★★
 Crucea de Piatră3 Oct 2017
YouTube: P-iFx3VIiQ0★★★★★
 Crucea de Piatră14 Sep 2017
YouTube: mWvP3QG18v0★★★★☆
 Fort St. John (BC)3 Sep 2017
YouTube: d3ajks8OHCo★★★★★
 Weert25 May 2017
YouTube: h0s_P74oQD4★★★★☆
 Port Tabacco (MD)18 Mar 2017
YouTube: 2wII24qSpDw★★★★☆
 Volgograd (VGG)18 Mar 2017
YouTube: _p_inSwZcPQ★★★☆☆
 Charles Town (WV)Feb 2017
YouTube: JJpSYozvasc★★★★☆
 RugeleySummer 2016
YouTube: mgrI0MHZQQc★★★☆☆
 New York City (NY)Jul 2016
YouTube: QGKkhZE2Fk0★★☆☆☆
 Ayden (NC)16 Oct 2016
YouTube: 6BUA6zdbgEE★★★★☆
 Nueva Talcuna24 Mar 2016
YouTube: O9R1wMq0VOI★★☆☆☆
 Maryland Point (MD)12 Dec 2015
YouTube: 9P2A8m7RgnA★★★★★
 Sion13 Nov 2015
YouTube: dNrtU1z_5EQ★★★☆☆
 Westbury26 Sep 2015
YouTube: VjW_QyXtyHA★★★★★

 Nueva Talcuna, 24 Mar 2016


 Abstract  This case from Chile is interesting mostly due it being located in the Soutern American location, where good WFM cases are, to my knowledge, rarely captured with high quality equipment. The object appears in only eight frames and does not come very close to the lens. Its trajectory is very untypical for WFM, because it either changes its altitude or its speed without approaching the drone directly, as often observed in other cases. However, the originator is very responsive and has an individual profile, which increases the reliability of the footage. Alternative explanations, such as lens flares or mundane natural phenomena are not convincing.


Video Info
Source:YouTube.com/watch?v=O9R1wMq0VOI
User:Agustin Lepe 
Published:12 Jul 2016
Resolution:1080p
Frame rate:30fps
Drone model: DJI Phantom 3 4K
Files: archived original description and comments on YouTube
Content Info
Viewpoint*: -29.952436, -70.963662goo.gl/maps/3mLwkCw6dj72
Time†: 24 Mar 2016 17:41 (Chile Standard Time, UTC-03:00)
Weather: 20°C, 1013hPa, 60% humid., 16.7-18.5 km/h wind Wmore 
Object Analysis Results
Appears in frames:858 to 865 (00:28:600 to 00:28:833 m:s:ms)
First/last appearance*:(-29.953278, -70.969417)  /  (-29.95125, -70.966472)
Object's direction:S to N
Passed distance:0.356km (44.5m per frame)
Traveling speed:4806km/hReview methodology for this estimate


Data Reliability and Quality

The earliest mention of this video occurred, as far as I know, on Agustin Lepe's YouTube channel. He provides thorough background information on the equipment and location, but not on social circumstances. Furthermore, his channel is focused on alleged video footage of mainly UFOs, but also a collection of other topics, including Big Foot, (alternative) historical hypotheses, political topics and others. He describes his channel simply as De todo un poco ! Vive la vida ;-), which translates to something like A little of everything! Live your life ;-).

These circumstances point to comparatively lower reliability prima facie, but this case is more interesting. The actual raw footage comes from the little local company La Serena Drone, which offers drone filming for local clients (e.g. for advertising purposes). They uploaded a video of drone footage of the exact same location at the same day than the alleged WFM capture (YouTube Fm9VLJrxREM). However, the scene with the WFM is not included in La Serena Drone's officially posted video of the location, which can be determined by the missing turn of the gimbal to the left during the view on the football field. Figure 1 shows this.




Fig 1. The part with the possible WFM is cut out in the company's officially released video (top), but is shown in the video from the private channel (bottom). Slowed and scaled down segments. Note the gimbal movement.

I talked to La Serena Drone (on June 8, 2008 via WhatsApp and the contact number on their web page) and found out that it is run by Lepe. He was very responsive and open to discuss all issues of the topic. He further corroborated his claim that the footage is genuine. These circumstances make the following scenario very believable: he shot a video of Nueva Talcuna on March 24, 2016 for La Serena Drone. He uploaded the non-controversial footage to their official marketing channel and the part with the WFM was further processed for Agustin Lepe's personal channel. This background increases the reliability of the footage substantially, because it is not provided anonymously, we know that the originator owns the original footage and the scene showing the possible WFM is cut out of the officially released video.

The footage itself does not show any signs of hoaxing. However, since the object is only visible in eight frames, this footage does not provide as good data as the four or five star ranked cases from the footage list. It is particularly interesting due to its location in Chile, South America, and the data is good enough to make a WFM a best explanation for this case.

Smear Effect

Figure 2 shows a slowed and enlarged version of the visible object. The smear effect is noticeable but particularly weak for an object of that speed and seen from that angle. However, as can be seen by the clear sky and the strong shadows, the lighting conditions are very favorable, which leads to a comparatively short digital shutter time. Furthermore, this footage was taken with DJI Phantom 3 drone. Some other cases of videos allegedly showing WFM filmed with a DJI Phantom 3 show a particularly weak smear effect under consideration of the particular lighting conditions, as well (e.g. 6BUA6zdbgEE, VjW_QyXtyHA). Therefore, under these circumstances, the weak smear effect is not good evidence for a hoax but its noticeability is rather evidence for the footage's genuineness.


Fig 2. Enlarged and slowed view in the possible object in the frames in which it is visible.

Perfectly Linear Trejectory

Figure 3 indicates that the object travels on a perfectly linear trajectory seen from the available viewing angle. The almost equidistant appearances of the object in the different frames are peculiar and make the speed estimation more challenging than in most other cases of possible WFM.

(click image for fullscreen view)
Fig 3. Object's travel path and position in every frame in which it is visible (see test in image for details).

Speed Estimation

Due to the camera angle and the only few frames of visibility, the estimation of the traveled distance is not as reliable as in the best cases of possible WFM footage analyzed on this web site. From the travel path shown in figure 3 we can infer that either the object lowers its altitude during the flight, or it decreases its traveling speed. The crucial information in the data are the distances of the object's appearance in the successive frames.

If the object approaches with a constant speed from the area with higher altitude in the background, then the viewing angle towards the object would make the object's appearances be closer together in the earlier frames. Figure 5 shows this case. Therefore, if the object approaches from this angle and distance, it has to decrease the traveling speed during the approach. If the object has a constant traveling speed, then, due to the almost equidistant points of appearance in the successive frames, it has to change its altitude to appear as it does in the video. Figure 4 shows this case.

(click image for fullscreen view)
Fig 4. Estimation of distance traveled under the assumption of a constant traveling speed and a changing altitude.


(click image for fullscreen view)
Fig 5. Estimation of distance traveled under the assumption of a constant altitude and a changing traveling speed.

The estimation of figure 4 results in an estimated traveling speed of 4806 km/h, the estimation of figure 5 results in an estimated traveling speed of 9036 km/h. Given the only very slight changes of the object's apparent size in the different frames (see figure 2) and the fact that changes in altitude seem to occur more often in possible WFM footage Decrease of the WFM's flight altitude (e.g. mWvP3QG18v0, _p_inSwZcPQ, 9QZvy_SJT8E) than changes of traveling speed (e.g. d3ajks8OHCo)—both are rather rare overall—I tend to deem the more prudent estimation in accordance with figure 4 more reliable. However, a more conclusive decision is not possible based on the weak data.

Weather

Due to the object's traveling speed and direction, an explanation as a weather phenomenon can be excluded.

Appendix

Fig A.1. Distance between camera and nearest publicly available weather station at La Florida Airport.

* Geographic coordinates are given as a vector of latitudes and longitudes in format WGS 84 as used by Google maps.

† The detailed point in time of the capture was stated by the originator of the footage.

 
 
Contact Donate Legal & Copyrights Author

© whitefastmovers.org 2018-2024