1
00:00:06,309 --> 00:00:03,590
hello so on january the 9th 2019 a video

2
00:00:08,070 --> 00:00:06,319
of a ufo showed up on youtube it's shot

3
00:00:10,709 --> 00:00:08,080
from a drone flying over the utah

4
00:00:13,110 --> 00:00:10,719
landscape near beaver and at one point a

5
00:00:14,789 --> 00:00:13,120
white object zips by the camera

6
00:00:16,710 --> 00:00:14,799
four days after the video dropped it was

7
00:00:19,910 --> 00:00:16,720
posted on my metabunk forum that same

8
00:00:22,550 --> 00:00:19,920
day ivan horn suggested it's just a bug

9
00:00:25,670 --> 00:00:22,560
and created a simple 3d recreation of a

10
00:00:27,509 --> 00:00:25,680
one centimeter wide object moving slowly

11
00:00:29,509 --> 00:00:27,519
across the field of view it seemed to

12
00:00:32,069 --> 00:00:29,519
fit and initially i thought this was

13
00:00:34,470 --> 00:00:32,079
fine case closed but then additional

14
00:00:36,950 --> 00:00:34,480
analysis commenced the next day january

15
00:00:39,030 --> 00:00:36,960
the 14th somebody posted a video that

16
00:00:41,190 --> 00:00:39,040
claimed the object passed behind the

17
00:00:44,389 --> 00:00:41,200
distant ridgeline that meant it traveled

18
00:00:46,790 --> 00:00:44,399
over three miles in two seconds

19
00:00:49,270 --> 00:00:46,800
the day after that january the 15th rob

20
00:00:50,950 --> 00:00:49,280
woodus who posts as propellerhead

21
00:00:53,029 --> 00:00:50,960
published a video that repeated the

22
00:00:54,709 --> 00:00:53,039
ridgeline claim he did some more

23
00:00:57,029 --> 00:00:54,719
analysis that his head shows that

24
00:01:00,069 --> 00:00:57,039
parallax proved it was far away at the

25
00:01:02,630 --> 00:01:00,079
start and as it moved with the distant

26
00:01:03,910 --> 00:01:02,640
mountains but not with the nearby trees

27
00:01:06,550 --> 00:01:03,920
he said

28
00:01:09,510 --> 00:01:06,560
i believe i've proven it can't be a bug

29
00:01:12,149 --> 00:01:09,520
and that it's a sizable craft traveling

30
00:01:14,789 --> 00:01:12,159
over 9000 miles per hour and parallax

31
00:01:17,990 --> 00:01:15,990
a lot of people found this rather

32
00:01:20,070 --> 00:01:18,000
compelling other people weighed in on

33
00:01:22,550 --> 00:01:20,080
february the 18th point consciousness

34
00:01:24,630 --> 00:01:22,560
did some fancy motion tracking analysis

35
00:01:26,230 --> 00:01:24,640
but didn't really use it for anything he

36
00:01:28,469 --> 00:01:26,240
generally agreed with the ridgeline and

37
00:01:30,950 --> 00:01:28,479
parallax arguments and uh he calculated

38
00:01:34,390 --> 00:01:30,960
the likely size and speed his conclusion

39
00:01:36,469 --> 00:01:34,400
was indeterminate but he went 60 percent

40
00:01:39,190 --> 00:01:36,479
for it being some amazing technology

41
00:01:41,830 --> 00:01:39,200
super fast craft and more likely an

42
00:01:44,230 --> 00:01:41,840
alien craft

43
00:01:46,789 --> 00:01:44,240
back on metabunk i pointed out that the

44
00:01:48,230 --> 00:01:46,799
object only vanishes for one frame and

45
00:01:50,230 --> 00:01:48,240
with the noise in the video this was

46
00:01:51,830 --> 00:01:50,240
probably just video compression it also

47
00:01:53,350 --> 00:01:51,840
dropped out earlier

48
00:01:55,109 --> 00:01:53,360
meanwhile people started to discuss if

49
00:01:58,310 --> 00:01:55,119
it was a bird

50
00:02:01,190 --> 00:01:58,320
we found a bunch of other similar videos

51
00:02:03,749 --> 00:02:01,200
on february the 18th truth serum

52
00:02:05,429 --> 00:02:03,759
published a very long video the most

53
00:02:07,190 --> 00:02:05,439
important part of which was calculating

54
00:02:09,350 --> 00:02:07,200
distance and speed from an assumed

55
00:02:10,229 --> 00:02:09,360
object's size which seemed to rule out a

56
00:02:13,190 --> 00:02:10,239
bird

57
00:02:15,750 --> 00:02:13,200
then on february 22nd jay lamb raised

58
00:02:18,150 --> 00:02:15,760
some objections why didn't a 9 000 mile

59
00:02:21,670 --> 00:02:18,160
per hour craft ruffle the trees a bit he

60
00:02:23,510 --> 00:02:21,680
suggested a bird might be a better fit

61
00:02:25,270 --> 00:02:23,520
that day on metabunk

62
00:02:27,670 --> 00:02:25,280
truth serum's video had prompted a

63
00:02:29,670 --> 00:02:27,680
discussion about the field of view and

64
00:02:31,990 --> 00:02:29,680
the frame rate and the calculated size

65
00:02:34,070 --> 00:02:32,000
and speed and we mostly moved towards it

66
00:02:36,150 --> 00:02:34,080
being smaller than a bird

67
00:02:38,070 --> 00:02:36,160
on march the 8th i agreed a bug was

68
00:02:40,070 --> 00:02:38,080
likely but might also be something

69
00:02:43,030 --> 00:02:40,080
blowing in the wind like a seed or a bit

70
00:02:45,509 --> 00:02:43,040
of paper next month on march the 23rd

71
00:02:48,470 --> 00:02:45,519
propellerhead robotis updated his

72
00:02:50,630 --> 00:02:48,480
analysis with a video called beaver utah

73
00:02:53,110 --> 00:02:50,640
another way to see it where he now

74
00:02:55,750 --> 00:02:53,120
realized his parallax argument is not

75
00:02:59,430 --> 00:02:55,760
conclusive because the object is moving

76
00:03:04,229 --> 00:03:01,830
rob starts to look at things i feel the

77
00:03:05,990 --> 00:03:04,239
view and how quickly things of different

78
00:03:07,910 --> 00:03:06,000
sides approach the camera he doesn't do

79
00:03:10,149 --> 00:03:07,920
too much math but he does do a lot of

80
00:03:12,390 --> 00:03:10,159
practical experiments and eventually he

81
00:03:14,949 --> 00:03:12,400
concludes that something small floating

82
00:03:16,630 --> 00:03:14,959
in the air can't be ruled out

83
00:03:18,309 --> 00:03:16,640
you know it just floats in the air now

84
00:03:20,309 --> 00:03:18,319
am i saying that's what it is i just

85
00:03:23,270 --> 00:03:20,319
think that it's neat that we've looked

86
00:03:26,470 --> 00:03:23,280
at this another way and we found another

87
00:03:28,789 --> 00:03:26,480
possible explanation back on metabunk

88
00:03:30,630 --> 00:03:28,799
the bug or something small hypothesis

89
00:03:32,949 --> 00:03:30,640
remains strong we also find a few more

90
00:03:35,030 --> 00:03:32,959
examples in july and later in october

91
00:03:36,949 --> 00:03:35,040
that seemed to support it on september

92
00:03:39,670 --> 00:03:36,959
the 18th the discovery channel featured

93
00:03:41,190 --> 00:03:39,680
the video on episode 7 of contact but

94
00:03:43,350 --> 00:03:41,200
they didn't really add anything new with

95
00:03:44,229 --> 00:03:43,360
their analysis

96
00:03:47,910 --> 00:03:44,239
then

97
00:03:49,509 --> 00:03:47,920
on november 2019 rob woods took a trip

98
00:03:51,830 --> 00:03:49,519
to the side of the video and noticed how

99
00:03:53,990 --> 00:03:51,840
much stuff was floating in the air

100
00:03:55,990 --> 00:03:54,000
bugs seeds etc some of which you can see

101
00:03:57,429 --> 00:03:56,000
in this video we seem to make him move a

102
00:03:59,990 --> 00:03:57,439
lot closer to the small object

103
00:04:01,670 --> 00:04:00,000
hypothesis because it is a wild natural

104
00:04:03,030 --> 00:04:01,680
place you know there's a lot of stuff in

105
00:04:05,990 --> 00:04:03,040
the air

106
00:04:07,830 --> 00:04:06,000
i really think it's possible that the

107
00:04:09,270 --> 00:04:07,840
utah video was something that was in the

108
00:04:11,830 --> 00:04:09,280
air

109
00:04:17,590 --> 00:04:13,190
don't have a way to prove that of course

110
00:04:21,749 --> 00:04:18,949
i'm glad i came out here to take a look

111
00:04:23,909 --> 00:04:21,759
at it myself and now two years later i'm

112
00:04:25,110 --> 00:04:23,919
starting to make this video and i asked

113
00:04:27,350 --> 00:04:25,120
rob

114
00:04:29,590 --> 00:04:27,360
what's your current thinking on what

115
00:04:31,270 --> 00:04:29,600
this is you seem pretty open to being

116
00:04:33,590 --> 00:04:31,280
something in the air like a burger or

117
00:04:35,270 --> 00:04:33,600
seeds during this trip what do you think

118
00:04:36,230 --> 00:04:35,280
now you've had more time to reflect on

119
00:04:38,150 --> 00:04:36,240
it

120
00:04:41,030 --> 00:04:38,160
and he replied

121
00:04:42,629 --> 00:04:41,040
hey mick i think it's poplar fluff

122
00:04:44,629 --> 00:04:42,639
and he also noted his mistake with a

123
00:04:45,430 --> 00:04:44,639
parallax argument

124
00:04:47,510 --> 00:04:45,440
so

125
00:04:50,070 --> 00:04:47,520
it seems like ivan's original estimate

126
00:04:52,629 --> 00:04:50,080
was correct it was just a small object

127
00:04:53,510 --> 00:04:52,639
close to the camera a bug or a maybe a

128
00:04:54,710 --> 00:04:53,520
seed

129
00:04:59,030 --> 00:04:54,720
and now he's shaking out all the

130
00:05:00,390 --> 00:04:59,040
objections its case finally closed

131
00:05:02,550 --> 00:05:00,400
but why do people still think this is

132
00:05:04,950 --> 00:05:02,560
something well yeah look at the view

133
00:05:06,870 --> 00:05:04,960
count on the videos the first video is

134
00:05:08,950 --> 00:05:06,880
released by brian hanley and he got over

135
00:05:10,790 --> 00:05:08,960
a million views i see the next one which

136
00:05:12,469 --> 00:05:10,800
was just the raw footage

137
00:05:14,390 --> 00:05:12,479
brian then went on to promote rob's

138
00:05:16,790 --> 00:05:14,400
first two videos with stunning new

139
00:05:19,270 --> 00:05:16,800
analysis debunks claim the utah ufo was

140
00:05:21,189 --> 00:05:19,280
a bug it reached 9 000 miles per hour

141
00:05:23,029 --> 00:05:21,199
which was just rob's first video with a

142
00:05:24,469 --> 00:05:23,039
voiceover by brian

143
00:05:26,790 --> 00:05:24,479
that got over a

144
00:05:28,629 --> 00:05:26,800
quarter of a million views

145
00:05:29,510 --> 00:05:28,639
and rob's video itself got another 60

146
00:05:31,270 --> 00:05:29,520
000.

147
00:05:34,070 --> 00:05:31,280
brian did this with rob's second video

148
00:05:36,070 --> 00:05:34,080
and he got 132 000 videos and he posted

149
00:05:38,629 --> 00:05:36,080
some more videos which were just mostly

150
00:05:40,950 --> 00:05:38,639
irrelevant points and ridiculously

151
00:05:42,950 --> 00:05:40,960
enhanced videos but even those got

152
00:05:44,870 --> 00:05:42,960
thousands of views

153
00:05:46,469 --> 00:05:44,880
ryan didn't publish rob's third video

154
00:05:48,710 --> 00:05:46,479
where he acknowledged his mistakes and

155
00:05:49,990 --> 00:05:48,720
embraced the small object hypothesis but

156
00:05:51,749 --> 00:05:50,000
he does have an hour and a half

157
00:05:53,510 --> 00:05:51,759
discussion with rob where they show the

158
00:05:55,270 --> 00:05:53,520
fourth one and discuss the topic kind of

159
00:05:57,270 --> 00:05:55,280
dancing around a bit keeping the door

160
00:06:01,430 --> 00:05:57,280
open but yeah that's really irrelevant

161
00:06:03,909 --> 00:06:01,440
because it only got 1 700 views and

162
00:06:06,070 --> 00:06:03,919
rob's last two videos the correct ones

163
00:06:07,590 --> 00:06:06,080
got around 10 000 views combined less

164
00:06:09,189 --> 00:06:07,600
than two percent

165
00:06:11,590 --> 00:06:09,199
of the views of the first two the

166
00:06:12,870 --> 00:06:11,600
incorrect videos

167
00:06:14,950 --> 00:06:12,880
so basically

168
00:06:16,870 --> 00:06:14,960
lots of people have seen the video

169
00:06:18,950 --> 00:06:16,880
and the original supposed proof that it

170
00:06:21,350 --> 00:06:18,960
was a large fast-moving craft but hardly

171
00:06:23,029 --> 00:06:21,360
anyone has seen their attractions

172
00:06:24,950 --> 00:06:23,039
hardly anyone has seen the better

173
00:06:27,749 --> 00:06:24,960
analysis that shows it's just a small

174
00:06:29,510 --> 00:06:27,759
slow object the fun theory beats the

175
00:06:33,270 --> 00:06:29,520
boring theory even when the boring

176
00:06:36,230 --> 00:06:34,469
so let's finish up with a quick

177
00:06:38,390 --> 00:06:36,240
explanation of how you can replicate the

178
00:06:41,430 --> 00:06:38,400
analysis yourself first of all get the

179
00:06:43,909 --> 00:06:41,440
raw footage the original video is a 1.3

180
00:06:45,350 --> 00:06:43,919
gigabyte file it's 1080p resolution it's

181
00:06:46,870 --> 00:06:45,360
60 frames per second and if you're

182
00:06:48,469 --> 00:06:46,880
looking at anything else you're going

183
00:06:50,309 --> 00:06:48,479
gonna have problems with the ridgeline

184
00:06:53,270 --> 00:06:50,319
obscuration and possibly the speed

185
00:06:55,110 --> 00:06:53,280
analysis from counting frames

186
00:06:56,950 --> 00:06:55,120
first the ridgeline issue

187
00:06:59,589 --> 00:06:56,960
zoom in and increase the contrast a bit

188
00:07:01,670 --> 00:06:59,599
then go through one frame at a time the

189
00:07:03,270 --> 00:07:01,680
important thing to note is that it only

190
00:07:05,589 --> 00:07:03,280
vanishes for one frame under the

191
00:07:07,350 --> 00:07:05,599
ridgeline it's small and there's a lot

192
00:07:09,510 --> 00:07:07,360
of noise so it's quite possible it's

193
00:07:11,110 --> 00:07:09,520
just compression dropout especially as

194
00:07:13,350 --> 00:07:11,120
it's just one frame and especially as it

195
00:07:15,110 --> 00:07:13,360
drops out earlier

196
00:07:16,629 --> 00:07:15,120
the parallax argument we don't really

197
00:07:19,350 --> 00:07:16,639
need to address as it assumes a

198
00:07:20,790 --> 00:07:19,360
stationary object and this is moving rob

199
00:07:24,070 --> 00:07:20,800
made the argument and then quickly

200
00:07:24,870 --> 00:07:24,080
dropped it with this third video

201
00:07:26,790 --> 00:07:24,880
then

202
00:07:28,950 --> 00:07:26,800
size and speed we know the field of view

203
00:07:30,629 --> 00:07:28,960
is about 40 degrees so that's the angle

204
00:07:33,110 --> 00:07:30,639
that you can replicate the video with in

205
00:07:34,909 --> 00:07:33,120
google earth we know the width of the

206
00:07:38,230 --> 00:07:34,919
video is

207
00:07:40,270 --> 00:07:38,240
1920 pixels which means the focal length

208
00:07:44,550 --> 00:07:40,280
of the camera is

209
00:07:46,629 --> 00:07:44,560
1920 divided by 2 divided by tan of 40

210
00:07:51,189 --> 00:07:46,639
over 2 degrees is

211
00:07:53,110 --> 00:07:51,199
2 638 pixels we'll use this in a second

212
00:07:54,950 --> 00:07:53,120
then we take 10 frames of the video

213
00:07:56,790 --> 00:07:54,960
where we can see the object clearly fly

214
00:07:59,029 --> 00:07:56,800
in a straight line towards the camera we

215
00:08:00,869 --> 00:07:59,039
measure the height in pixels at the

216
00:08:03,909 --> 00:08:00,879
start and the end of the section when it

217
00:08:05,830 --> 00:08:03,919
goes from six pixels to 20 pixels

218
00:08:07,350 --> 00:08:05,840
now if we knew the actual height we

219
00:08:09,189 --> 00:08:07,360
could use these pixel heights to

220
00:08:11,029 --> 00:08:09,199
calculate the distance to the object

221
00:08:13,270 --> 00:08:11,039
it's just the height times the focal

222
00:08:14,950 --> 00:08:13,280
length of pixels divided by the height

223
00:08:16,629 --> 00:08:14,960
in pixels

224
00:08:18,390 --> 00:08:16,639
we can do this for both points and get

225
00:08:19,830 --> 00:08:18,400
the distance traveled divide that by the

226
00:08:21,589 --> 00:08:19,840
time uh 10

227
00:08:23,189 --> 00:08:21,599
10 frames being a sixth of a second and

228
00:08:24,950 --> 00:08:23,199
you get the speed

229
00:08:26,869 --> 00:08:24,960
since we don't know the height i made a

230
00:08:28,869 --> 00:08:26,879
spreadsheet letting me put in different

231
00:08:30,790 --> 00:08:28,879
heights and calculating the speed

232
00:08:32,230 --> 00:08:30,800
uh we want something that's flying or

233
00:08:34,469 --> 00:08:32,240
blowing in the wind and we know the

234
00:08:36,230 --> 00:08:34,479
drone is moving maybe 30 miles per hour

235
00:08:38,070 --> 00:08:36,240
so around that speed works and it turns

236
00:08:39,909 --> 00:08:38,080
out something

237
00:08:42,550 --> 00:08:39,919
under one centimeter around a third of

238
00:08:45,430 --> 00:08:42,560
an inch gives us a speed of around 30

239
00:08:47,030 --> 00:08:45,440
miles per hour so that fits very well

240
00:08:49,350 --> 00:08:47,040
with something small

241
00:08:51,110 --> 00:08:49,360
a bird would probably be well over 200

242
00:08:55,269 --> 00:08:51,120
miles per hour which seems unlikely so

243
00:08:56,550 --> 00:08:55,279
i'd go with a bug or a seed

244
00:08:58,230 --> 00:08:56,560
we could also do similar math to

245
00:08:59,509 --> 00:08:58,240
calculate the motion perpendicular to

246
00:09:01,110 --> 00:08:59,519
the camera's line of sight and that

247
00:09:03,350 --> 00:09:01,120
comes out to be about five miles per

248
00:09:05,350 --> 00:09:03,360
hour like breeze speed

249
00:09:06,710 --> 00:09:05,360
and that's really all there is to it

250
00:09:08,949 --> 00:09:06,720
is it possible

251
00:09:10,949 --> 00:09:08,959
that it was a 4 000 mile per hour craft

252
00:09:12,070 --> 00:09:10,959
that made no sonic boom and nobody

253
00:09:13,350 --> 00:09:12,080
noticed it

254
00:09:15,670 --> 00:09:13,360
sure

255
00:09:17,990 --> 00:09:15,680
but a bug fits best and it's the

256
00:09:19,910 --> 00:09:18,000
simplest explanation by far so let's go

257
00:09:22,710 --> 00:09:19,920
with that one first especially as rob

258
00:09:23,509 --> 00:09:22,720
noted there's a lot of stuff in the air

259
00:09:25,110 --> 00:09:23,519
well

260
00:09:27,509 --> 00:09:25,120
thanks for watching if you want to see