04 Sep 2017 19:30 (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)
Weather:
15-18°C, 1026hPa, 31-37% humid., 3.7-9.3 km/h wind var.more
Object Analysis Results
Appears in frames:
-1 to -1 (59:59:983 to 59:59:983 m:s:ms)
Object's direction:
Data insufficient to estimate passed distance and traveling speed
Data Reliability and Quality
The originator uploaded 38 videos since 1 January 2015, he has only 10 subscribers and 4,936 views of his videos in sum (October 2018). He describes his channel briefly: Aerial foot[age] in the Great Northern Canada. (about page, retrieved in October 2018) Most of his videos are short clips of drone footage that are only a few minutes long. According to the videos' titles and descriptions, he used a Blade 350 QX3 in earlier videos (e.g. youtu.be/SI0td1hNAvg), but updated his eqipment to a DJI Phantom 4 Pro (as he claims in the discussion) in later videos (e.g. the WFM video above).
Ten videos on his channel are not drone footage but show a child who made a video vlog in which she presents her room and her toys. A very similar looking child appears playing on a playground in another drone video with an adult man, who is steering the drone (youtu.be/-KpfmCNaqBM). This child could likely be his daughter or another close relative or friend's child. This video furthermore exemplifies the originator's interest in experimenting with video editing, including background music.
Vinnie Barbarino, his user name on YouTube, is also a protagonist in the 1970s U.S. sitcom Welcome Back, Kotter and was played by John Travolta. Therefore, the channel name might be a pseudonym. However, Barbarino is also a common family name. Overall, the videos that show the child and the videos that show the drone's pilot let us reliably conclude that the originator does not take any specific measures to hide his identity.
He subscribed to 26 other YouTube channels with a wide variety of subjects, whereas some specifically focus on technology, adventure and drones. (October 2018) One of his subscriptions is the channel secureteam10, which has about 1.8 million subscribers (October 2018) and often covers UFO related topics. On this channel a video with the title FAST MOVERS! UFO Almost Knocks Out Drone & More! 6/20/16 was published on 20 June 2016. This video comments on the possible WFM case qpxzC2zTAIQ. This is 15 months before Vinnie Barbarino uploads his possible WFM footage. He might have heard of the WFM phenomenon from the secureteam10 video before.
How reliable is Vinnie Barbarino's footage? his channel seems to be the genuine hobbyist channel of someone who likes to shot aerial footage with drones, and who is interested in technology and adventure. Knowing about the WFM phenomenon increases the likelyhood of a hoax significantly, but the originator's YouTube channel does not seem to be aimed to reach a large audience. A further technical analysis of the actual images strengthen the view that this footage is genuine and not fabricated
This video was shot in 2160p and 60fps, which is also the case for earlier drone videos on his channel (e.g. youtu.be/m6n_-wpmQDA). In this possible WFM footage, the drone is stable on a high altitude, which is rather untypical for the drone footage on this channel. Furthermore, except for the WFMs, I could not see any other moving object (e.g. car, bird) in the footage. These are usually good indicators for that this is not some editing over a still image. However, as figure 1 shows, the drone's gimbal turns slightly in a realistic fashion, and, as figure 2 shows, the change of the lens flares indicate that the lens actually moves in relation to the light source, the sun. These aspects show that, if it is a hoax, then it is done by someone with advanced knowledge about optical imagery.
Fig 1. Sped up and looped animation to demonstrate gimbal movement.
Fig 2. The change of a lens flare indicates actual videoing, instead of a manipulated still.
The originator describes his video with: Don't know what this could be. If the video is played in 4k on a big screen you can see a second
one flying horizontal and perpendicular at the start. As my frame-by-frame analysis shows (see figure 4 below), at least four WFM can be detected in this footage. This provides further evidence that this footage is genuine, because a hoaxer might more likely point out his fabrications fully than only partially. In a comment he speculates about his footage showing a strong possibility of [the footage showing] a Peregrine Falcon in a dive, but doesn't quit seem like that. Hard to say. Have seen it before with a different drone and camera. As I conclude below, despite this animals fast maximum speed at diving from high altitude, the flight patterns and colors that can be observed in the footage can clearly not be caused by a falcon (see figure 3). The originator questioning the UFO interpretation himself provides further support for the view that this is not hoaxed footage.
Fig 3. North American Falco peregrinus anatum (Wikimedia). See chapter on large and known animals for a further discussion why WFMs cannot be birds.
Another very interesting aspect that can be used as an argument in favour of this footage's genuiness is the very untypical flight behavior of the possible WFMs. As elaborated on below, the changes of altitudes or directions, as well as the change in speed are rarely observed. A hoaxer would more likely mimic available data, than introducing new phenoma. I further explain my views on these claims about arguments in favor of data reliability in my dedicated chapter.
Two Typical WFMs, Two Changes of Altitude, and a Change of Travel Speed
Fig 4. Analysis of the objects' paths in the video. For pragmatic purposes (demand of computationan power and storage) this analysis is only avalailable in greyscale.
Up to four possible WFM (WFM1-4) are visible in the video. They show very different flight behaviors and their distance to the camera lens varies significantly, too. The objects seem to not directly influence each others' trajectories. However, as figure 4 illustrates, given the changes of altitude of WFM2 and also, possibly, WFM1, as well as the directions of flight, there is some slight support for an additional interpretation. The WFM are investigating (for whatever purpose) the specific area where there flight paths roughly cross, which is the large, squared field in the center-left of the image. Since we do not know enough about WFMs, this hypothesis has only very speculative support but it can help as a creative approach for further investigations of WFMs.
Close-Ups and Smear Effects
The visibility of the four different possible WFMs, their smear effect and even their shape is noticeably different from each other. Figure 5 provides an overview. WFM4 has a strong smear effect in the footage. WFM3 has only, if any, a weak smear effect which seems particularly irregular throughout the succeeding frames and might be influenced by other the objects' actual movement or ideo compression artefacts. WFM2 has no smear effect.
WFM1 shows some indication of a smear effect, but its appearance cannot only be caused by a smear effect due to a long shutter time. The reason for this analysis result is that WFM1 seems to have two lumps, one on its top, and one closely following in exactly the same direction. A somewhat similar effect of a tail can be found in other cases of footage of possible WFM (CNoFOSfFlAk). Two-pieced, peanut-shaped WFMs were also captured (_p_inSwZcPQ). Furthermore, WFM1 could also show two WFMs that fly in a close formation for whatever reason. This footage might be important to consider while speculating about what WFMs are.
Fig 5. Close-up views on WFM1 (top left), -2 (top right), -3 (bottom left), and -4 (bottom right).
As the next section about the objects' travel speeds reveals, the smear effects of WFM2, -3 and -4 are consistent with what would one expect from footage filmed with a DJI Phantom 4 Pro (see chapter on data reliability for discussion). I cannot provide convincing and consistent analysis reasults for the appearance of WFM1 in this footage.
Speed Estimation and Lack of Influence by Gravitational Force
Given the video is shown in original speed (nothing indicates to something else, but there is the problem with a lack of reference objects) the estimation of traveling speed reveals the following.
WFM1's average travel speed is hard to estimate for the times it is seen between the frames 31-83, because the footage does not indicate wether the object changes altitude, or direction, or both to different degrees. Its traveled distance after that phase can be estimated (figure 6) as 972 km/h. If it would have been traveled that fast before these frames, its smear effect should have been stronger. Therefore, this estimate is not very reliable.
Fig 6. Estimate of traveled distance over the ground for WFM1 between frame 83 and 187, from which a of speed: 972 km/h is estimated.
WFM2's travel speed cannot be reliably estimated, because the change of the object's appearance indicates very clearly that it moves away from the camera lens and is strongly descending to an altitude slightly above the tops of the trees, which is a common travel altitude of WFMs. After this very pronounced descend from frame 71 to about frame 225, the object seems to only move very slowly on a roughly constant altitude directly above the tree tops. A very rough estimate of about 502 km/h is possible to estimate the travel speed of WFM2 over the ground between frames 71 and 226, which ignores the additional speed to the descend. Figure 7 shows the estimate of the traveled distance.
Fig 7. Estimate of traveled distance over the ground for WFM2 between frame 71 and 225, from which a of speed: 502 km/h is estimated. This ignores the distance passed by the object's descend.
It is interesting to note that the descend between frame 71 and 226 is linear and not parabolic, implying that it the descent is not only driven by gravitational forces (i.e. falling). As common with WFMs, no influence of gravitational forces can be observed.
WFM3 and WFM4 seem to travel on a roughly constant altitude along a roughly or completely constant path. WFM4 travels with a speed of 752 km/h and WFM3 with 232 km/h. Figures 8 and 9 show the estimated traveled distances. WFM4's travel speed derived by my commonly employed methodology is well corroborated by the smear effect in accordance with the drone model and the distance of the object to the lens. Thus, WFM4 travels with a very common speed for WFMs, which cannot be achieved by a drone using publicly available technology. From this perspective of technical feasibility, WFM3 could be a white and jet-propelled RC airplane. However, given this whole scene of WFMs in this footage and the lack of any mentioning of noise, it seems more likely that it is just a WFM, like the other objects in this footage.
Fig 8. Estimation of WFM3's traveled distance, from which a of speed: 232 km/h is derived.
Fig 9. Estimation of WFM4's traveled distance, from which a of speed: 752 km/h is derived.
Weather
The weather is particularly warm. Non of the four WFM can be explained as a meteorological phenomenon.
Conclusion
This case provides a treasure trove of WFM data. The social background of it make it reliable data. This case is particularly interesting due to the occurrence of several possible WFMs in one footage, whereas all four cases have their own peculiarities.
Appendix
Fig A.1. Distance between camera and nearest publicly available weather station at Fort St. John Regional Airport.
* Geographic coordinates are given as a vector of latitudes and longitudes in format WGS 84 as used by Google maps.
† The day of the capture was stated by the originator. The more precise point in time was then derived by analyzing the direction and lengths of the shadows. A simplified but sufficient description and calculator for shadow lengths can be found at planetcalc.com/1875.
Fig 1. Sped up and looped animation to demonstrate gimbal movement.
Fig 2. The change of a lens flare indicates actual videoing, instead of a manipulated still.
Fig 3. North American Falco peregrinus anatum (Wikimedia). See chapter on large and known animals for a further discussion why WFMs cannot be birds.
Fig 4. Analysis of the objects' paths in the video. For pragmatic purposes (demand of computationan power and storage) this analysis is only avalailable in greyscale.
Fig 6. Estimate of traveled distance over the ground for WFM1 between frame 83 and 187, from which a of speed: 972 km/h is estimated.
Fig 7. Estimate of traveled distance over the ground for WFM2 between frame 71 and 225, from which a of speed: 502 km/h is estimated. This ignores the distance passed by the object's descend.
Fig 8. Estimation of WFM3's traveled distance, from which a of speed: 232 km/h is derived.
Fig 9. Estimation of WFM4's traveled distance, from which a of speed: 752 km/h is derived. 
Fig A.1. Distance between camera and nearest publicly available weather station at Fort St. John Regional Airport.
