The exact date and time of the recording were not given
Object Analysis Results
Appears in frames:
7596 to 7609 (04:21:931 to 04:22:379 m:s:ms)
Object's direction:
NE to SW
Data insufficient to estimate passed distance and traveling speed
Data Quality and Reliability
The originator's YouTube channel has 510 uploaded videos since May 2013, today (November 2018). The channel has about 1,200 subscribers and 767,000 views in total. The fast majority of the videos show one to nine minutes of HD flight footage captured from a passenger seat insight of different large airplanes near the wing. A few videos show other airport footage (e.g. boarding procedure, outside view of a landing airplane). Four videos show short clips of exotic animals (sea lions, alligator, tortoise). Three videos show popular travel destinations (a train in Hong Kong, Chilean mountain roads, a cave on Galapagos). None of the videos have any specific or mentioned relation to UFOs.
The vast majority of the videos are only rarely watched and do typically not exceed a few hundred views. However, as of today, to the contrary, the discussed video of a possible WFM has 362,005 views and 295 comments (November 2018). This implies that, given the low popularity of the channel, the video was heavily shared and discussed. The reason for this must not necessarily be the possible WFM occurrence in the video. The top up-voted comments on the video (according to YouTube's algorithm) do not mentioned the possible WFM, but rather #1 Donald Trump's parked private machine can be seen on the airport's runway, #2 New York city looks like a nasty, over crowded, over rated, filthy place, and #3 how many buildings there are. As of today, only the 29th comment mentions a bird flying past @ 4:26, whereas only one of seven re-comments recommend that this is a UFO. Furthermore, the video's originator does not mention the possible WFM in the footage, nor does he engage in the discussion about it.
This lets me---for now---conclude that the video's popularity is not primarily caused by the possible WFM, but rather by it showing areal footage of central New York City (Please contact me, if you have any good clues on why this video is so popular). The UFO focused and popular YouTube channel MUARICIO RUIZ UFO CHANNEL mentions the possible WFM in an analysis video (KdLaifMfkpY, 16Nov2018) more than two years after the capture.
The originator's channel's domain name justinhwoo reveals his likely real name. But I was not successful in identifying him exactly based on openly available information, due to the many possible candidates that would fit this name. However, overall I deem this footage fairly reliable due to the very believable intentions of this channel of just featuring mainly airplane footage and no UFO related subjects at all. The lack of further personal background information about the originator and further technical details of the footage prevent a better reliability rating in my view.
The footage itself is not among the best analyzable cases of possible WFM footage. The object is only visible in 14 frames. The object's altitude is too high to reliably measure its speed using comparison to covered ground. The resolution is of lower quality HD. However, the possible object seems to be very fast, despite the hardly possible speed estimate due to the airplanes movement in the opposite direction and the uncertainty about the distance to the object.
Close-up View and Smear Effect
As figure 1 indicates, the footage shows the object with some slight smear effect. But given how fast the possible object shoots through the images captured with 29 frames per second, the used digital camera sensor has to be of very good quality to produce this kind of footage (see part b.3 of the Chapter on data reliability for a detailed discussion on smear effects and camera sensors).
Fig 1. Close-up view from the frame with best visibility due a dark background.
Object's Travel Path
Figure 2 shows the travel path. During the scene, the airplane moves and the perspective changes very slightly. However, the airplane seems to fly very directly in the opposite direction to the possible WFM and the change of perspective is almost irrelevant to the analysis of the possible WFM's travel path. The alleged object flies in a very straight line without any noticeable maneuver, which is well in the scope of capture WFM footage.
Fig 2. Analysis of object's travel path.
Speed Estimation
Due to the viewing perspective, a reliable and precise speed estimate is not possible. However, the object appears very sharp in the images and moves a significant distance from frame to frame. The sharpness implies that the object is not very close (i.e. a few centimeters) to the lens. Therefore, the object must move very quickly in relation to the airplane. Since the distance between the lens and the object cannot be estimated no more precise estimation is possible.
Weather
The originator does not provide detailed information about the time of the capture. However, the dense cloud cover, the absence of fog on ground level, and the upload date in July indicate that this was captured on a warm day with very high humidity. The movement pattern of the possible WFM and its dense appearance make it unlikely to be explained by a common weather phenomenon (e.g. hail stone or clouds).
* Geographic coordinates are given as a vector of latitudes and longitudes in format WGS 84 as used by Google maps.
Fig 1. Close-up view from the frame with best visibility due a dark background.
Fig 2. Analysis of object's travel path.
