[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★★★★★

 Weert, 25 May 2017


 Abstract  This footage exemplifies many of the most common features of the phenomenon captured by a drone camera. The object is approaching from a distance along an only roughly straight line, meaning that it either changes its altitude or its direction or both to a minor degree. It moves about two to four times the speed of sound over a suburban area. Later frames of the video reveal that the camera's shutter time is too long to get a clear picture of the object. The originator of the video provides detailed background information, in particular a precise time stamp, and further video analysis (in other videos on his channel).


Video Info
Source:YouTube.com/watch?v=h0s_P74oQD4
User:Ghosttjr2 
Published:25 May 2017
Resolution:1080p
Frame rate:60fps
Drone model: YUNeeC Q500
Files: archived original description and comments on YouTube
Content Info
Viewpoint*: 51.235311, 5.712555goo.gl/maps/sbRr6A9ktdN2
Time†: 25 May 2017 20:57 (Central European Time, UTC+02:00)
Weather: 22°C, 1022hPa, 53% humid., 14.4-16.7 km/h wind NEmore 
Object Analysis Results
Appears in frames:18 to 76 (00:00:300 to 00:01:267 m:s:ms)
First/last appearance*:(51.243667, 5.725833)  /  (51.235694, 5.713139)
Object's direction:NE to SW
Passed distance:0.736km (12.47m per frame) (unreliable)
Traveling speed:2694.5km/h (unreliable)Review methodology for this estimate


Data Reliability and Quality

The originator of this video uploaded 514 videos on YouTube in the last six years and has 782 subscribers (June 2018). His content mainly revolves around comparing different drone models, about robots and other radio controlled models. Some videos show some selected topics that are unrelated to the mentioned ones and seem to be motivated by some momentary interests of the channel owner. Despite two videos that refer to the so-called Black Knight Satellite in the title (Gbr3atMNueM, hR7OmdJbp1k), his selection of videos does not indicate any specific interest in UFOs or related topics. As in many other cases, his channel seems to be a hobby project of someone who likes to use and compare different camera drones for private use.

He is generally very responsive to comments and elaborated upon request that some channel analyzed this too and said it was horizontal hail, this is the only video of mine I saw it in, and I have flown this drone for 3 years (M1RoJMyPpq4, 11 June 2018). He refers to a comment from the show Paranormal News Today. But it is interesting to note that he says to have not witnessed this phenomenon in any of his many other drone videos. Furthermore, he mentions the claim that this is a hailstone, which I interpret as an indication of him not being specifically interested in sensationalizing this footage. These circumstances lead me to believe that the reliability of this footage is fairly good and likely not the result of an elaborated hoax. Furthermore, the smear effect and size of the approaching object in the images look very genuine.

He provides good background information about time, place and equipment of the capture. Furthermore, he provides a zoomed and slowed-down version of this capture on his channel.

The quality of the footage is good due to the high frame rate (60 fps) but the resolution (1080p) could be better. However, the estimation of the object's travel path and the smear effect can be determined as good as in the best other cases from the footage list. Figure 1 shows how the smear effect evolves in the footage.

Smear Effect

Fig 1. Slowed and enlarged view of object in the last frames in which it is visible.

The smear effect of this example is particularly well observable, due to some favorable features of the footage: the object can be seen to approach the camera from the far distance, the object's speed is fast enough to show a significant smear effect but slow enough to be observable in sufficiently many frames. In the Netherlands in the evening hours the lighting is weak enough to force the digital camera to use a significant shutter time, 60 fps document the object's movement comparatively often, the object seems to pass the drone very closely from below. The clearly changing smear effect in the different frames substantiates the impression that the object is approaching from afar.

Object's Trajectory and Speed Estimation

The object can be seen to approach the camera from the distance. Figure 2 shows an analysis of its travel path.

Fig 2. Analysis of object's travel path on selected frames (due to the high framerate: first frame, last frame, and every fifths frame in between).

At first sight, the object seems to be traveling on a constant altitude in a linear trajectory over the ground. However, the assumption of a roughly constant altitude leads to a significantly different estimated speed than the assumption of a roughly constant speed of the object. The object is either significantly lowering its altitude in frames 18 to 55 or it is significantly lowering its travel speed or both to some degree. Figure 3 shows the estimated travel path under the assumption of a lowering altitude, figure 4 shows the travel path under the assumption of a decreasing travel speed.

Fig 3. Estimation of travelled distance assuming constant speed and changing altitude.


Fig 4. Estimation of traveled distance assuming constant altitude and changing speed.

Since many of the captured cases show a possible WFM that maneuvers in earlier frames and then seems to aim specifically to pass the drone closely (e.g. 2wII24qSpDw, JJpSYozvasc, VjW_QyXtyHA), but significant changes of traveling speed (e.g. d3ajks8OHCo) seem to be much rarer, I deem the speed estimation based on figure 3 more reliable. Furthermore, then we infer a much more prudent speed estimation of around 2,696 km/h, instead of the 4,613 km/h based on figure 4. However, both estimated speeds exclude the possibility of another model plane or mundane animal as explanations for the WFM pattern in the data.

Appendix

Fig A.1. Distance between camera and nearest publicly available weather station at Eindhoven 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