Hey Mick, I love these debunking videos. I'd love to join up with the metabunk community one of these days. I have a passion for debunking, plus I am a CGI artist of 15 years with focus on photorealism so I've got a particular set of skills revolving around video, compression, editing, animation, etc that seems like it would mesh quite well. Keep doing what you do!
create a hoax video with ufos using your cgi skills, then post it on r/ufos, then wait until it gets big and people will start saying that it is "the best footage ive ever seen in my life", then post making of your hoax video
I like it when the skeptics ask for data then when they have actual instrument data from like the Nimitz encounter it's a technical glitch. 😉 Even top physicist acknowledge the UFO phenomenon now days, the eternal skeptic pool keeps shrinking quite a bit.
@@Semblerait Well radar jamming, radar visual from the Nimitz, previous anomalous behavior already reported by radar, and the subsequent investigation by the F-18s which reported EW behavior, they also identified the shape of the object when they came close enough. Too many details to say it was natural or a error, definitely a solid object of advanced technological nature if you research the full testimonies.
You should team up with BELLINGCAT.With all these skills of video analysis flight analysis,shadow analysis,open source info from Google earthmaps sreetview wikipedia,flightaware etc. The truth becomes clearer and more mundane. Joe Rogan,and the whole UFO industry including scientists politicians military hacks space force hacks ,would try to shut you down,?
I like that a spectrum of possible answers is always on the table verses 100% support for one answer. Open mindedness to the complexity of reality. But as data comes in, with higher and higher quality cameras in everyone's pocket, I think we will be able to formulate a pattern of what people have been seeing over time.
he is not - his bug theory does not add up, especially when its not 6 vs. 20 pixels, he arbitrarily selected those numbers to match his idea. Frame before its 1 pixel and on last frame its 100 pixels, far greater ratio than 6 vs 20 he used to match his excel sheet data.
@@MidNiteR32 Well it obviously defies your understanding; humans already make vehicles that travel 5 times faster than hypersonic and they make a hell of a boom and look like a fireball when they travel through even the thinnest layers of the atmosphere.
Mick your videos in comparison to those sensationalized video with more than 1million only teaches us that how people are attracted to spicy news. Your debunk videos require brains to assimilate and digest information your provide so only few people come to watch. You are doing a great service to humankind.
Don't confuse their minds with the facts! They're too busy getting their aerobicize by jumping to conclusions not based on analysis of each individual frame.
Hi Mick, have you ever looked at the video of the thing slowly coming down then shooting up over the Dome of the Rock with the red 'lights' in the sky afterwards? I think there's 3 different videos (and another one which is obviously fake) if so, can I get a link please, thanks matey ✌️
Isn't that what the UFO cultists are all about? My mother used to drag me around to those events, to "elevate" my spirit. I was just scared spitless from all the wackos that I saw!
Thank you for the debunking, Mick. Feels much safer going to bed now, knowing that nothing strange ever happens. And if it does, you'll be there to debunk it. Every time.
I can tell you without a doubt, very strange things have happened to me, personally out in that same area! This may have been a bug, just like the military tick tak videos are bugs. Until you've experienced something other worldly, you'll continue to believe the junk. But hey, isn't past your bed time?
@@mhnoni You're mistaken, they did see it with their own eyes they also checked the instruments to confirm and analyse, but several of the pilots did, Underwood didn't I think or maybe yes, I don't remember.
This is how I look at this. You can hear an RC Glider, even one with a wingspan less then 1 meter, whistling through the air, even when it's just doing around 30mph, and then you consider how loud bullets are and they're going anywhere from 1000 mph to 2000 mph, now think about a significantly larger object, ripping through the air at 9000mph... the shock wave would like trigger an earth quake or something, it'd be so damn powerful, and easily knock the drone out of the air, plus probably rupture the vital organs of the person operating the drone, I mean it'd be comparable to several times the shock wave of when meteor's explode in the upper atmosphere and shatter windows for miles and miles around them, there's simply no way it can be anything like that. So yeah considering a bug also explains the video in it's entirety, I'm gonna say it was a bug lol.
Are you open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, if an alien civilization has managed to find out our planet, then they probably possess technology that manipulates physics in a way that we cannot understand?
@@brandonmoffitt4627 That's the thing about physics, once you've studied it for a bit, you start to realize that you can't just brake physics. Our understanding of physics is quite therough, and the only thing aliens could posess is something like extremely strong but light materials and maybe some way of going through warm holes, but the bottom line is, if they exist in the same reality as us, then they are bound by the same laws of physics as us, they could have more powerful or efficient engines, they could maybe have found a way to manipulate gravity or aquire more energy dense fuels, stuff like that, but in the end this video is still literally just a small bug flying by a camera and has absolutely nothing to do with aliens.
@Bryant TiptonThat's a fair point. However I could refute it with Occam's Razor. Simply asking what's more likely the answer here, reguarding this specific video, makes this whole thing so trivial. To be super clear, you are correct, it's completely possible we just have yet to defy our current understanding of physics in any way, but with our current understanding of physics being as good and seemingly correct/accurate as it currently is, the likelihood that there is indeed a way you can brake our entire undstanding of thermodynamics, and indeed travel in atmosphere wildly fast without making any form of shockwave or sound, or generating any sort of heat at all, is unimaginably less likely than the other answer here. The other answer in this situation also just happens to have an extremely grounded and rational explanation behind it as well, especially considering further research done on this video, being of course that it's literally just one of those cottonwood seeds floating along in the wind and in the video, it proceeds to come super close to the camera as the drone flies by it. All in all of course anything's possible, but damn, if it could seriously just be a cottonwood seed, (Might be another type of seed fyi, I don't remember what exactly was found to be growing there producing these seeds) then this is some really poor evidence for a UFO that defies our understanding of physics. Anyways I just hope you see how unreasonable it is to come to the conclusion that we're actually seeing physics being broken.
Nice summary, Mick. I only came across this story a couple of days ago when someone directed me to the 'raw footage' video. My first thought was that it could be an insect, but a bit of crap in the breeze makes as much sense. It's not surprising, or particularly sinister, that someone wants to make a name for themselves by creating a click-bait story out of it but what I do find disturbing is that so many people make a huge leap of blind faith that this kind of thing is alien or supernatural. It's a dangerous path to follow.
Mick - I wish I could say I was surprised that people will believe the unbelievable and ignore the facts. It is truly amazing that the human race survived as long as it has.
Yeah, I think it was not so much a case of survival of the fittest as survival of the luckiest. Not Homo Sapiens but Homo Fortunatus. It just so happens that Nature and the cosmos did not throw any major curveballs at us in the last few million years. Global warming and Covid are showing us how dumb we really are.
At 1.5 million views, probably the most viewed and analysed bug on the internet. We do see alot of bugs on ghost videos too, except there they are called ‘orbs’.
@@karlkarlsson9126 i watch ghost videos out of amusement and i assure you any out-of-focus whiteish dot floating across the screen, be it dust, reflections, spider webs, debris, lens aberrations or bugs - are described as ghost orbs (spirits, souls, angels or other such nonsense).
I was out filming sheep last summer in Australia and captured heaps of these sort of “ufos” - “rods”. Looking back at whip pan reframe in the raw footage and bingo …. Insect as sharp as can be. These people are easily excited.
My first gut reaction watching the original video back in the day, was that the object was a peregrine falcon diving (judging by the aparent speed, the movement, the white color, and that's in Utah). To me, the bug hypothesis doesn't add up because if there is a bunch of stuff floating in the area, why didn't get filmed? In the context of the size analysis, measuring pixels; 1cm bugs should be all over the place and in a 3 minutes video, is more than probable for them to flyby close and inside the view of the drone's camera but just only one of those bugs get caught on film?
@@jasonv.9015 Perhaps you need glasses, or a new formulary? I can see clearly the dihedral of a birds wing. Its as obvious as the nose on your face. Did you do a frame by frame analysis as I have done? Otherwise, you would never see it. I may not be available for immediate response due to my crazy chemotherapy schedule.
I once looked at the "raw footage" and I thought I remember seeing far more than just 1 pixel where it seems to disappear, unless of course I was seeing another similar object... Also the part at which it makes the turn from being far away then coming toward the camera looks super weird to me, the color and brightness and shape of the object appears to change and bend; any thoughts on this? Is that all due to video compression?
This so-called “debunker” is a clown. Your initial thoughts are quite right on this video. The origin point for this object’s trajectory is far in the distance. You can see it curve from the mountain forest and travels over that distance at a very high speed.
Hey mick thanks for pulling me out of the rabbit hole several years back. Been a fan ever since! Nice skateboard as well. Looks like a tony hawk board!
Support Mick guys, he's the right guy to do this. With the technical skills, the proper temperament and the right philosophy; it's not often you get all three in a person, in any field. Buy his book or some shit like this.
It's not right to arrive at the conclusion that it's a bug or a seed without explaining how a seed or a bug flies. In the RAW footage at 2:44, you can also see a bug. It's just black because the sun is directly behind it. You can also see the shadow of the guys standing at the end of the video which confirms the direction of the sun. So to your point, if it's a bug of any color, it should look just black for the most part because of the Sun's direction. - But this thing is white. - And no bug travels this fast and more importantly in a proper path of a flight. - Also, you can't see when a bug makes a turn while it's flying. This thing makes a visible turn a 1:49 and you can clearly see it in the footage. - You cannot see a 1 cm bug from a mile away let alone how it visibly turns.
I agree with your assessment. It was clearly behind the ridge, and literally banks before it takes off at full speed. I don't know what it was, but bug or bird, no.
Mick, I really enjoy your content. Wonder if you'd ever consider tackling some of the ancient astronaut theorist claims? Specifically, some of the theories surrounding the granite and dolerite artifacts that were carved with copper tools. Or maybe the age of the sphinx?
Are you familiar with either the Scientists Against Myths or SGD Sacred Geometry Decoded channels? They provide some simple, to the point videos demonstrating how ancient ancestors’ (not aliens) building techniques could work. ru-vid.com ru-vid.com
damn, I completely forgot about that one... yet I remember that after the 9000mph-ufo went viral I thought: mkay, whatever... let them figure it out. if it's really, actually, without any doubt some '9000mph' aircraft of sorts, it'll end up in the news and on the headlines anyway... otherwise it'll silently glide into the fringe, cgi, or natural phenomenon drawer like the rest of the ufo evidence to date... and what do you now, it was but two years gone and here we are :D
I'd ask this: If we see the 'bug' approach the camera and grow in pixel size, why is it at some point the bug just seems to appear, turn and come at an angle towards the camera? In this case, I submit that indeed it was not a bug. Why? Because if the camera is picking up background in a wide-ranging shot, how is it that the bug appears from nowhere. The counter theory is one you showcased where we can see the object coming into view from faraway, turning along the ridgelines, and across the plain towards the camera - this too remains as possible as you did not compare pixel sizes of the trees to the object - if they are relative, the object came from the mountains, and is not a bug.
I remember several years back when everyone posted seeing these small mysterious "rods" and this got a lot of attention by the Media. It had me baffled. After some investigation it was shown with absolute certainty they were insects. It was the type of video equipment that was more common than smart phones that caused this illusion. Thank you for this insight.
Hi Mick you said the David Fravor tic tac was a balloon. I want to debunk your theory because Fravor said it vanished in a blink an eye as he approached it and turned up 60 miles away, confirmed by radar, which means it was doing nearly mach 5. That together with the erratic movements it was doing over the water and then ascending when it 'noticed' Fravors jet approaching means it was a pretty amazing balloon, your balloon doing all that 😂 ! Do you know where I can get one ?
Thanks Mick. I overlooked this evaluation and finally came across it 1- extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . Until we get that it remains anything else but that. 2- I do disagree that it is a bug, or bird . Unidentified….. Lastly I could care less how many views the other two yahoos had lol.
Hard disagree. I mean yes when I first saw the original video I thought "this is just a bug or small debris" but after watching it multiple times and looking at different people's analysis on both sides I still think it's a craft moving at a crazy velocity. In this video he never actually debunks the part about the object moving behind the ridgeline first. He just says it could be video compression and that this is likely a bug or some poplar fluff or an insect. First of all, it doesn't look like poplar fluff and doesn't move like fluff. And he states that the calculated speed for something around that size would have to have been ~30mph, the only insect that can even approach this is a dragonfly, which this clearly isn't so back to fluff. The wind would have to be pretty intense to get that fluff moving around 30mph. Also this wind is in a valley, which would have come from different directions from bouncing off the surrounding landscape, creating mini vortexes / lots of turbulence and hard for any insect or floating debris to fly at top speed in a straight line. We've all seen pollen, dander, etc floating in the air with the wind. The fluff would move more erratically up and down with the wind and such. It wouldn't start way off in the distance by the ridgeline, make a nearly 90 degree turn, shoot off at great speed and maintain a straight line. Also right after sinking below the ridgeline, you can see this object rotate on it's side to bank like UAPs are proposed to do, coming into the valley then making the sharp turn which looks like an intelligently controlled maneuver. This thing also appears to be reflective and metallic when you can actually get a decent glimpse of it before the motion blur takes full effect. It doesn't look like a dragonfly, any other bug, or fluff drifting along bouncing in intense wind. Seems like this video is jumping through hoops and doing everything possible to prove that it isn't something extraordinary and unexplainable. And with the sheer amount of credible and fantastic sightings recently, it seems much more plausible this is just another UAP we don't have an explanation for yet rather than some as yet undiscovered super-insect that doesn't look like anything we know of yet or some plant fluff moving in an extremely unlikely way, both of which don't address that it banked around the ridge.
UFOs "seen" always follow popular tropes. Slow Metallic Flying saucers, light blinking Black Triangles, and now hyperfast White TIC TACS. thus. we got a hyperfast white tic tac where a small bug or airborne natural particle might have been ignored before. I wonder if this would BE a UFO video/sans drone. if taken in 1980.
Anything bigger than a baseball in size would compel the photographer to turn 180 and see it fly away, surely a fluff or bug. So many UFO videos are spider silk or spiders themselves parasailing.
It could be a bug or it could also be that the speed of the object is so fast (and its trajectory) that it's only outlined by the trees for a total of one frame. Im absolutely open for any of these two hypothesis it's just that ruling one out because it wasnt in frame for more then a small amount of time doesnt prove anything in its own. But the argument made in this video is still legit. Yet no definite proof... we need an ID of the correct bug etc While the most simple explanation usually is the right one I dont vibe with either of these because there's too many coincidences in both cases leaving my mind still open, as it's supposed to be in such a weird case. But we all choose what to believe in one way or another. This video is the perfect example of it🛸 Ps would also like to see an analysis of the Spanish "tic tac" drone videos.
Before watching the video: That's a bug. Now let's see what Mike says... EDIT: OK, I didn't know this was a big deal. Do people never have bugs flying towards them? Anyways glad my intuition was correct and the numbers show it's most likely not a bird.
Hey Mick, look up the white fly. Utah has an issue with them at the moment. It has rounded wing ends very much like the still frame you showed. (Hope you're well).
Hi Mick, Regardless of the optical analysis, consider this: can any object travel through air at a speed of many thousands of miles per hour (9000) without heating up to the point of spontaneously combustion? Consider the extraordinary technical measures they had to take to get the SR71 to get flying at even a third of that speed! It's physically impossible I'd say discussion closed (on the manmade or even alien origin)!
Why would it be impossible to fly? An SR-71 like aircraft was probably also thought impossible before it was built. The more unlikely / basically impossible thing is that an object this fast does not have an effect on its environment.
Combusting? You mean rusting? If you can speed sth up like that why would you not be able to get rid off the heat? It's obvious that the video doesn't show anything unusual, so speculation on what aircraft are possible is quite separate.
We’re talking about a supposed alien species that can travel to distant planets and presumably set up base there. We currently, as far as im aware, are as far away from such a concept as Homo erectus was from the microwave oven. Why would you apply our current understanding of physics and engineering to such a hypothetical civilization? I mean I think debunking is needed in this community don’t get me wrong but this kind of “we know all there is to know” circlejerk is frankly anti-scientific and I have a guess history will prove me right.
Based on the size and the amount the “object” grew as it approached the camera showed it wasn’t an object far off, it simply didn’t grow in size commensurate with an object viewable at 3 miles the coming close to the camera. Anything viewable at 15,000’ is very large and should therefore be enormous closeup. It’s speed did not increase enough based on an object tracking at 3 miles then flying by the camera close. Again, IMHO.
Like Mick says, 'the claims are more fun than the facts' - I trust Mick and his aerial photography expertise. Skepticism is the logical default position - it would be a saner world if more people understood this simple premise. And Mick would have more subscribers than people 'reacting' to songs they probably heard 20 years ago.
Thanks for chewing that. If we get smarter as a species so fast, and are planning to teach the stars, it would only be fare that the fun version is very probable.
I bloody love your debunking vids Mick,! As a Yorkshireman I'm a natural sceptic, always debating and with your guidance debunking my pals wild theories....thankyou!!
Mike, sorry but it's lazy debunking. Personally when I voted on Twitter for Utah video I expected something more substantial, e.g. recreation of the scene in 3d to match the movement of the camera and the object. Should say I highly doubt it is possible to find geometrical solution which would satisfy both condition at the same time - 1. to be bug/bird size and speed object and 2. its trajectory. Not sure why one of the authors dropped parallax argument - the drone moving with the speed of around 60 km/h, which creates a good geometrical base for parallax analysis. Point Consciousness video is a good illustration, I give you credit for referring it.
That explanation seems a bit oversimplified. I would at least make some attempt to recreate something in the general ballpark to be convinced. I believe an actual bug at the assumed size and distances would be very hard to see. It appears the sun is off to the right of the frame as the clouds are top lit. You’d think a silvery bug would need to be extremely well lit relative to the camera to show up that well. The bug effect with IR night cameras makes sense because of the lighting relative to the camera. The bugs reflect a lot of light and blow out the pixels. The other thing to keep in mind is the massive prop wash from the quad copter. It’s possible the “bug” was far enough away to be outside the prop wash, but that then reduces the likelihood a tiny bug was blowing out pixels as it was too far from the camera. Last point, the camera focus appears to be at ~infinity. This has an effect of “masking” local objects. Try filming though a window with marks and/or smudges on it. As long as you can focus out on something or set focus on infinity, the window “essentially” disappears. I’ll go bug all day though if there were some convincing field testing recreating something remote close to the optical effect seen in this video. Maybe it exists?
@@tottenhamhotspurish they look like a flare test to me. I've been into UFO's a long time, but the lack of evidence and the PYSOPs spook Lou has done me in. I am out.
@@kevivarma2759 Actually, there are TWO sets of videos. The first around 8 o'clock, the second at about 10:30 PM. First video is an unknown, while the second is obviously flares as you can see them disappearing behind the Sierra Estrella mountains to the east. Perhaps obfuscation by the military? Who really knows?
A good way of demonstrating your hypothesis would be to find footage of poplar fluff having similar behavior. Odds wise, it should be pretty easy, considering the astronomical amount in the air. As of right now, this footage remains an anomaly.
The superlatives in those video titles crack me up... "STUNNING", "JAW-DROPPING", etc. I have to wonder, stunning to whom, exactly? What type of viewer's jaw might drop from any of this content? Certainly not anyone who already believes ETI or their tech visit Earth on the regular. To them, any one of these UFO videos can at most serve as just another demonstration of phenomena they already happily accept into their worldview. It can't be the skeptics either, because there is never any new information imparted from these videos to render the nature of the phenomenon clearer upon repeat encounters. Somehow, the UFO remains forever out of focus.
@@kirkhamandy Reminds me of an old Mitch Hedberg joke about bigfoot: "I believe bigfoot is blurry in real life. It wasn't the cameraman's fault, and that's extra scary to me, because it means that somewhere out there lurks a large, out-of-focus monster, roaming the countryside." "What is that over there, is that a bear or something?" "No. That's no bear. Quick, RUN! He's blurry!"
But Mick don't deny the fact that there is a similar object flying around observed in 2004 the tic tac shape ufo with actual footage taken by the pilot and also the testimony of those pilot that saw it also with radar data they said. That's is very compelling from that footage alone
Mick, with all respect, you can debunk any individual video, but when you consider that this is much more than a few "sightings," you have to figure that there's more to this phenomenon than just natural origin and coincidence. I think all the credible sightings, and there are many, are like individual pieces to the same puzzle. And all there has to be is 1 truly bizarre, unexplained sighting for the ET hypothesis to be the logical conclusion. I could point to more than 1 sighting that should change the paradigm, if only we acted objectively.
@@darklight2.1 It comes down to how well you know all things UFOs. Consider the caliber of witnesses, then consider what every witness says they saw. At Rendlesham Forest in 1980, Betty and Barney Hill in 1961, Commander David Fravor and his wingmen in 2004, the Westall UFOs in Melbourne 1966, the Allagash incident of 1976, the Tehran UFO also in 1976, etc. I could go on and on. In many of these incidents, the case went beyond just seeing something in the sky. In some, credible people allege to have touched the landed craft and even witnessed their occupants. The Ariel School UFOs in Zimbabwe; you can't tell me that all those kids are making up what they saw. And the telepathic messages that so many witnesses say they received, warnings of environmental and ecological disaster. That seems to be a very common theme. The fingerprints are everywhere, and yet no "proof" to be found, as we know. Consider the massive government cover ups. If there's nothing to it, then why the coverups? And you can't say they're all experimental military aircraft. They don't usually fly around grade schools and other public places. All I hear is "Where's the evidence." The evidence is everywhere, albeit circumstantial and trace cases. There's just too much to not consider the E.T. hypothesis. In fact, I think it makes the most sense, as unimaginable as it may seem.
I don't know if Mr. Propeller head was especially rude to you in the past or something, but your contempt for them and later, point consciousness was quite apparent ( and unnecessary). I appreciate constructive criticism when I am wrong and if I am wrong, I want to know how I am wrong as quickly as possible so I can stop being wrong and start being right. I'm on the spectrum and has taken me years to learn that delivering biting but truthful criticism is not always the best way to go. I really appreciate the amount of time you put into researching the clips that you cover and the improvement to your video production & analysis over the years. Having said that, the kind of snark demonstrated towards random Twitter users here is precisely the kind of thing that I believe. Eric Weinstein took issue with and brought to your attention on the TOE podcast this week. If I could humbly suggest you focus a little more on educating people and politely pointing out mistakes and focus less on dunking on people that you see making amateurish mistakes. I know you see a lot of straight up bunk and amateur nonsense but we hold you to a higher standard for good reason
*👉People who think it's a bug/fluff and saying if it's a high speed aircraft then there must be some movement shown in the underground tress.* *👉Just give me one answer. I gonna ask you same question.* *Q. If it's a seed or fluff. How can it travel so fast because as we can see there is no wind breezing at high speed. If the wind is breezing at such high rate then there should be some movement shown in the underground trees. But as we can see in the video, they all are stationary.*
