The originator's YouTube channel is very small and shows only two videos, which both show possible WFM footage. He has four subscribers and less than a thousand views in total (January 2019).
The originator's channel name, Malin Oloier could be his real name, because both first and last name are common in Romania. There are also Blogger and Pinterest accounts for this name. This Blogger web site presents some pieces of photography taken with aesthetic considerations. I cannot fully verify that this is the same individual
I contacted Malin Oloier via his YouTube account (with my former user name homeruniverse) and he responded to me in the comment section. Interestingly, he responded the following to my request whether he has an explanation for what he captured:
No idea what those are, I have around 10-15 similar footage from 100 to 300m altitude, more or less visible. Generally seem to
run at high speed. Birds usually do not fly so straight. Possible to be some plants parts goes with the wind but in some footage I
have they go in different directions - I do not think wind change direction so quick. When I have some time will post all (comments, April 2018)
Upon my request for further elaboration he answered:
Also I notice that they are not quite straight in path but they have a very small repetitive movement in the vertical plane like a ping-pong ball heating the table on the way, kind like they are bouncing on an invisible horizontal surface. I notice this also on an YT movie in witch one similar object is running very direct to the drone and this vertical movement is much visible (same source)
These ideas were very interesting to me, because I never came across footage showing exactly what he described (the movement pattern). I asked him to further corroborate what he describes and he answered that When I have some time (next weeks) will send you the details mentioned above (same source) So far he did not provide an answer. I asked again six months later (comments, October 2018) but he did not react, again.
What did happen? My best guess is that he could not corroborate this claim. I am an expert of these cases and I never found WFM footage that showed what he described. Therefore, he was not motivated to answer my last question. However, the footage that he uploaded does not show this feature either.
This all is very interesting considering that I am mostly interested in knowing whether this footage is hoaxed or not. If it is hoaxed would the originator not make it look a little bit more like he expected it to look? If it is hoaxed, him expressing the conviction that WFMs often show a pattern of bouncing on an invisible horizontal surface despite his case does not would be a very complex maneuver of deceive.
Furthermore, he does not advertise his videos, which can be derived by the very small number of views. Despite this video being named Ufo Filmed by Drone - 2017-10-04, the other one is named DJI 0012 1, indicating that the originator does likely not aim to market his footage to a large audience.
Where does all this lead us to? The author might have a noticeable interest in photography and the technical methods that are employed in this field. Therefore, we cannot with strong arguments exclude the possibility that this is hoaxed footage. On the other hand, as the analysis below substantiates, there is no evidence in the footage to strengthen the view that this is hoaxed. Furthermore, this possible WFM footage fits well into the collection of other cases regarding how the object appears in the footage and its movement pattern. Overall, I conclude that, at this stage of the general analysis of WFMs, this case of possible WFM footage should be regarded as important and be included in our analysis. Most importantly, the clear view on the possible WFM reveals a shape and morphing behavior that, if genuine footage, is crucially important to grasp a better understanding of WFMs.
Close-Up View
The close-up view on this possible WFM is particularly interesting. The object seems to morph like a cloud in a very peculiar way. (figure 1, the original video shows a higher-quality close-up view) More specific, the object shows some arbitrary morphing that is symmetric along the direction of flight. Furthermore, the object does not tear apart as a water vapor cloud would do at those measured speed against air. The cloud-like object stays rather solid, which indicates that this phenomenon manages the interference with air resistance.
Fig 1. Left: animated close-up. 256 colors, original speed (25fps). Right: capture from last frame in which it is visible.
The smear effect can only be very weak for two reasons. First, the object travels rather slow (440km/h) in comparison with other cases of WFMs. Second, the originator claims to have filmed it with a DJ Phantom 3 4K which uses Sony's Exmor technology, which has a very low shutter time (see here for discussion). On the other hand, the general strength of lightning in the scene is comparatively low, which makes it possible that some weak smear effect appears due to comparatively long shutter times.
In the last frames of the footage the object appears more lengthy in shape (see figure 1, right). We cannot conclude how much of this appearance is cause by the smear effect and how much is caused by the object's morphing behavior. Figure 2 shows other cases of a smear effect in possible WFM footage captured with the same camera hardware. The magnitude of the smear effect is not inconsistent with these comparative cases.
Fig 2. Smear effects with similar camera hardware for comparison (click to view case).
Flight Trajectory
As figure 3 shows, the amount of gimbal movement is negligible. Figure 4 shows that the travel trajectory is strictly straight or almost strictly straight.
Fig 3. First and last frame in which the object is visible. Almost no gimbal movement.
As in many other cases, there seems to be a slight deviation from a perfectly straight travel path in the footage, which can only be revealed by a detailed frame-by-frame analysis. This might be caused by issues of perspective or lens distortion. Or the object does actually fly across a very slightly curved trajectory.
However, this slightly curved appearance in the footage significantly increases the reliability of it as not being hoaxed. The reason for this is that an artificially added effect would more likely me added with a perfectly straight path, because this is much easier to implement and more intuitive than an only barely noticeable curvature.
Fig 4. Path analysis (click for enlarged view).
Another interesting feature of this footage is that the visible trajectory, as well as the objects appearance size is very consistent with an object that travels along a constant altitude of a few tenth of meters. This is very typical for the WFM phenomenon.
Speed Estimate
To estimate the travel speed I employ the standard methodology with the assumption that the object travels roughly direct above the trees. The estimated distance is illustrated by figure 5 and leads to an estimated speed of about 440 km/h.
Fig 5. Estimated traveled distance.
Weather
The video was shot on a warm late summer day with only weak wind. The phenomenon cannot be explained as a mundane weather phenomenon.
Conclusion
Despite some reservations about this footage being genuine, there is nothing in the footage that would point to it being a hoax. The originator seemingly uses a real name and does not employ any strategy to sensationalize the footage. This case of a possible WFM is of crucial importance due to the relative good close-up view it provides and which reveal the morphing behavior of this possible WFM.
Appendix
Fig A.1. Distance between camera and nearest publicly available weather station at Bucharest Baneasa 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.
Fig 1. Left: animated close-up. 256 colors, original speed (25fps). Right: capture from last frame in which it is visible.
Fig 2. Smear effects with similar camera hardware for comparison (click to view case).
Fig 3. First and last frame in which the object is visible. Almost no gimbal movement.
Fig 4. Path analysis (click for enlarged view).
Fig 5. Estimated traveled distance.
Fig A.1. Distance between camera and nearest publicly available weather station at Bucharest Baneasa Airport.
