Green UFO video

[lift710]

https://www.onemob.com/v/OhEZIrC1V-ldfR4H76Sv_Q

[toast]

Dead link

[lift710]

18 minutes ago, toast said:

Dead link

Once you open the link you gotta click on the page and it will show the video

[freetoroam]

Can you get a link where we do not have to refresh and wait...and wait....and still nothing.

[Dejarma]

it's suggesting this light is in the sky--but it could be a light on a distant hill or tower etc for all we know.

i don't know what it is for sure... but i bet those who filmed it know exactly what it is!

[toast]

4 hours ago, lift710 said:

Once you open the link you gotta click on the page and it will show the video

Scrap it!

[Minimalists]

Looks like a green mask bouncing around...I agree with Toast...Scrap it.

[ChrLzs]

1. Do not post blind links like that - people will be rightly wary of clicking for risk that it is a redirect/trap site laden with malware...  While Youtube and other video hosting sites may be havens for stupidity, they are also safe to click on.

2. Post an explanation of all the details, eg is this your footage, what camera, where, date/time, how did it first appear, where did it go, etc.

If you do that, you'll get more than a tiny few (brave) people clicking on it.  Me, I'll pass until then.

[lift710]

 

[Astra.]

It looked like a green boxed lantern to me.

[Unusual Tournament]

no mystery at all, its the green monster from Ghost Busters.  

[Unusual Tournament]

23 minutes ago, Astra. said:

It looked like a green boxed lantern to me.

sworn to protect the universe and mankind from all forms of evil. 

[Skulduggery]

I saw something like this once. It moved in strange stop-and-go motions, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, and turned red a couple times. It looked unremarkable, like the light on the top of a radio tower. This video seems to show something similar but I can't tell if it's moving or stationary in the video. Man-made whatever it is. Anyone know where this was shot? I've never seen a tower have green lights. Do they? I dunno. Possibly a helicopter or drone.

Edited May 26, 2018 by Skulduggery

[ChrLzs]

Just to repeat....

On 5/22/2018 at 8:57 AM, ChrLzs said:

1. Do not post blind links like that - people will be rightly wary of clicking for risk that it is a redirect/trap site laden with malware...  While Youtube and other video hosting sites may be havens for stupidity, they are also safe to click on.

2. Post an explanation of all the details, eg is this your footage, what camera, where, date/time, how did it first appear, where did it go, etc.

If you do that, you'll get more than a tiny few (brave) people clicking on it.  Me, I'll pass until then.

As you have not provided 2., ie the backstory...  what on earth do you expect us to do?

I will say this - that shape is one I have seen before from a cheap-ish camera (on a phone).  It is (I'm betting) zoomed up horribly by *digital* zoom (ie useless duplication of pixels that shows no true detail), and I'll take a wild guess that at maximum *optical* zoom, the object takes up about two or three pixels.  When you digitally zoom 2-3 bright pixels, especially on a cheap (aka stupidly programmed) camera that sharpens the pixels before zooming, then that sort of shape will result - also, of course, if an aircraft had it's landing lights on, again, that shape would be a possible result of 'bokeh' (look it up).

Anyway, can someone who has looked, verify my guess - did the camera ever zoom out to show the object un-digital-zoomed, and was it ridiculously tiny?  And does the video have any explanatory notes at Youtube and does it include what happened before it appeared, or show it until it disappeared, or show steady background detail that would help identify the movement of the 'thing' if any exists?  My guess is fail on all counts - am I right?

Could this be one of the rare UFO videos that actually does *everything* wrong?

 

[Skulduggery]

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Anyway, can someone who has looked, verify my guess - did the camera ever zoom out to show the object un-digital-zoomed, and was it ridiculously tiny? 

Zooms out at the end. Just a tiny dot in the sky. Not sure about any YouTube description or notes. The shape seen throughout much of the video is a result of bokeh. I'm no camera expert, but pretty certain it's a digital zoom. Nothing interesting here. It looks to be somewhat stationary in the sky.

[lift710]

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Just to repeat....

As you have not provided 2., ie the backstory...  what on earth do you expect us to do?

I will say this - that shape is one I have seen before from a cheap-ish camera (on a phone).  It is (I'm betting) zoomed up horribly by *digital* zoom (ie useless duplication of pixels that shows no true detail), and I'll take a wild guess that at maximum *optical* zoom, the object takes up about two or three pixels.  When you digitally zoom 2-3 bright pixels, especially on a cheap (aka stupidly programmed) camera that sharpens the pixels before zooming, then that sort of shape will result - also, of course, if an aircraft had it's landing lights on, again, that shape would be a possible result of 'bokeh' (look it up).

Anyway, can someone who has looked, verify my guess - did the camera ever zoom out to show the object un-digital-zoomed, and was it ridiculously tiny?  And does the video have any explanatory notes at Youtube and does it include what happened before it appeared, or show it until it disappeared, or show steady background detail that would help identify the movement of the 'thing' if any exists?  My guess is fail on all counts - am I right?

Could this be one of the rare UFO videos that actually does *everything* wrong?

 

Its just a video I found among many other UFO videos so I have no idea of the backstory. The camera that took the video im sure is not a phone as it has better definition and zoom. I think the video is in optical zoom even when zoomed in. The camera zooms out at the end and the object stil looks the same as it does when its zoomed in. For sure it dosent look like an aircraft or bokeh. In my opinion the video is clearly showing what looks like a real UFO.

[ChrLzs]

4 hours ago, lift710 said:

Its just a video I found among many other UFO videos so I have no idea of the backstory.

OK, fair enough, but do you think that someone who was genuine would shy away from providing details and talking in detail about their 'find'?

Now, I'm sorry to to say, I actually looked at the video (and regretted it), and here comes a digital photography lesson as we might as well make it useful..

4 hours ago, lift710 said:

The camera that took the video im sure is not a phone as it has better definition and zoom.

Er, 'better'?  Better than what?  I have a cheap smart phone, and I'd wager it's resolution is better than what we are seeing here...  But you must have access to different footage perhaps?  Because this is recompressed, 720p 'HD' (see below), so even if the footage *was* of 'better' resolution, there is no way of seeing that on this Youtube...  That barely deserves the title of HD, and is in fact quite poor resolution.  Again, read on - I'll come back to that topic shortly.

4 hours ago, lift710 said:

I think the video is in optical zoom even when zoomed in.

No.  Here's a screenshot:

See those squared off lines, and all the little 8x8 pixel blocks?  That is what digital zoom does.  That stuff is NOT real detail, obviously - you can see it changing (a LOT) on every frame, just as it would from digital zoom and jpeg quantisation (look it up).  Seriously, that is the most obvious and archetypal example of just how much damage digital zoom does to an image, that I have ever seen.  As soon as you see those telltale 8x8 pixel blocks and those perfectly orthogonal straight lines, you know it's digital zoom, or someone overusing digital enlargement in post-proc.  NEVER, ever use digital zoom, folks, if you want your footage to be taken seriously.  Turn it off, it is worse than useless unless all you want is to create false detail. 

4 hours ago, lift710 said:

The camera zooms out at the end and the object stil looks the same as it does when its zoomed in.

What?  Here it is (a crop of the clearest frame I could find):

- and you're telling me that tiny little block of pixels is the same shape?????

Here it is, blown up by simply enlarging the pixels:

Anyone agree it looks the same?   I don't..  Interestingly, not only is it nothing like the shape of the green owl above, apart from it's rough length x width ratio, it is also virtually colorless...?  I'm beginning to wonder about this 'camera' and whether it is even real footage...

4 hours ago, lift710 said:

For sure it dosent look like an aircraft or bokeh. In my opinion the video is clearly showing what looks like a real UFO.

What is a 'real UFO'?  Do you mean alien, or just genuinely unidentifiable?

It's certainly the latter, but only because the author has (deliberately?) left no clue, so we can't find another shot of this same location and see if there is perhaps a radio transmission aerial there, or perhaps even just a verandah light on a house on a hill..  OP, do you not see what I mean about this being an almost perfect example of why ufology is nothing but a topic of derision - this video is, deliberately or otherwise, full of every telltale of mischief.  From the lack of description/location, to the (over)use of digital zoom, to the not holding a long enough still shot of the background to see if it moves, to not showing what happened as time progressed - you name it, it's a texbook UFO waste of time.

But hopefully you, or someone else learnt something along the way...?

 

And if anyone would like to help investigate this, please see the next post...

[ChrLzs]

Further to the above - I'd REALLY like to have a look at that scene in daylight and at different angles, to help identify the light.

Here's a screengrab that I hope someone can help identify:

Does anyone recognise any part of that - the building with the funny logo that maybe starts with a D and has a curved A in it?, the strange blue-purple leaning thingy with what appears to be related lights to the top left?  It looks to me like an outer suburban location, if that helps - anyone have any clues that might assist us to find it?

Edited May 29, 2018 by ChrLzs

[Skulduggery]

To me, and I definitely could be mistaken, it looks like it was shot through a window and there is a bit of reflection. 

[Skulduggery]

Never mind that. Went back to the video. The blue lights are definitely outdoors. Not a reflection. 

[ChrLzs]

Answering my own request here.. that building facade is a Sun 'Dreams' casino building.. somewhere.  I think it might be this one, captured from a lookout on Google Streetview - it is in Punta Arenas, Chile.

I haven't got the angle quite right, but this seems to suggest that the greenish light may be a boat on the water, possibly with it's fish attracting lights on?

Anyway, can't be sure yet, and for now I have no further time - if anyone else wants to take the ball and run, feel free.

 

[lift710]

11 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

OK, fair enough, but do you think that someone who was genuine would shy away from providing details and talking in detail about their 'find'?

Now, I'm sorry to to say, I actually looked at the video (and regretted it), and here comes a digital photography lesson as we might as well make it useful..

Er, 'better'?  Better than what?  I have a cheap smart phone, and I'd wager it's resolution is better than what we are seeing here...  But you must have access to different footage perhaps?  Because this is recompressed, 720p 'HD' (see below), so even if the footage *was* of 'better' resolution, there is no way of seeing that on this Youtube...  That barely deserves the title of HD, and is in fact quite poor resolution.  Again, read on - I'll come back to that topic shortly.

No.  Here's a screenshot:

See those squared off lines, and all the little 8x8 pixel blocks?  That is what digital zoom does.  That stuff is NOT real detail, obviously - you can see it changing (a LOT) on every frame, just as it would from digital zoom and jpeg quantisation (look it up).  Seriously, that is the most obvious and archetypal example of just how much damage digital zoom does to an image, that I have ever seen.  As soon as you see those telltale 8x8 pixel blocks and those perfectly orthogonal straight lines, you know it's digital zoom, or someone overusing digital enlargement in post-proc.  NEVER, ever use digital zoom, folks, if you want your footage to be taken seriously.  Turn it off, it is worse than useless unless all you want is to create false detail. 

What?  Here it is (a crop of the clearest frame I could find):

- and you're telling me that tiny little block of pixels is the same shape?????

Here it is, blown up by simply enlarging the pixels:

Anyone agree it looks the same?   I don't..  Interestingly, not only is it nothing like the shape of the green owl above, apart from it's rough length x width ratio, it is also virtually colorless...?  I'm beginning to wonder about this 'camera' and whether it is even real footage...

What is a 'real UFO'?  Do you mean alien, or just genuinely unidentifiable?

It's certainly the latter, but only because the author has (deliberately?) left no clue, so we can't find another shot of this same location and see if there is perhaps a radio transmission aerial there, or perhaps even just a verandah light on a house on a hill..  OP, do you not see what I mean about this being an almost perfect example of why ufology is nothing but a topic of derision - this video is, deliberately or otherwise, full of every telltale of mischief.  From the lack of description/location, to the (over)use of digital zoom, to the not holding a long enough still shot of the background to see if it moves, to not showing what happened as time progressed - you name it, it's a texbook UFO waste of time.

But hopefully you, or someone else learnt something along the way...?

 

And if anyone would like to help investigate this, please see the next post...

Thanks for the lesson in photography, it sure was helpful. What I mean by 'real UFO' is just genuinely unidentifiable. I agree that the camera man should have kept filming until the object possibly went out of sight or at least write the description/location.

Edited May 29, 2018 by lift710

[ChrLzs]

Having gone about as far as I can go, here is my rough guesstimate of the location from Google Street View, overlaid transparently on the scene...

On the basis of that matchup, which is clearly pretty darn close given I didn't have to do much stretching or tilting to get a good match, the UFO/object is close to and probably beneath the horizon - in other words, it's most likely on the water (or 'flying' very low above it).  In other words, it's likely a boat or perhaps a chopper or aircraft coming in low.  Note that without finding out exactly where that photo was taken from, we can't be absolutely sure - if the vantage point was higher or lower than the one I used, then the results could be different.

To take this a little further, I also checked the first and last frames that showed the UFO relative to the foreshore lights, and found that there was NO, I repeat NO appreciable difference in the relative position of the 'UFO'.  Now admittdly that was only during a few seconds, but in other words, there are no signs of movement - it's either stationary or very slow moving.  While I could post an animated gif to show that, I think this one's over and am not really inclined to spend more time on what is very likely an anchored boat with bright light/s.

[Gaden]

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Having gone about as far as I can go, here is my rough guesstimate of the location from Google Street View, overlaid transparently on the scene...

On the basis of that matchup, which is clearly pretty darn close given I didn't have to do much stretching or tilting to get a good match, the UFO/object is close to and probably beneath the horizon - in other words, it's most likely on the water (or 'flying' very low above it).  In other words, it's likely a boat or perhaps a chopper or aircraft coming in low.  Note that without finding out exactly where that photo was taken from, we can't be absolutely sure - if the vantage point was higher or lower than the one I used, then the results could be different.

To take this a little further, I also checked the first and last frames that showed the UFO relative to the foreshore lights, and found that there was NO, I repeat NO appreciable difference in the relative position of the 'UFO'.  Now admittdly that was only during a few seconds, but in other words, there are no signs of movement - it's either stationary or very slow moving.  While I could post an animated gif to show that, I think this one's over and am not really inclined to spend more time on what is very likely an anchored boat with bright light/s.

 So. it's an unidentified floating object.