Hey guys, wow a lot of interesting replies...
Like I said previously I am not sure what those were, I've never seen this in any other videos that I recorded , the theory of a feather seems as a fair explanation and I understand the objection regarding the speed yes indeed if the objects were so small appearing just in front of my drone from the vanishing point to passing by it true would make sense.
I examined the original video many times and it still though appears as the large object number 3 comes from behind the trees but again I maybe wrong... the truth is that all of our explanations are just theories and speculations as no one can actually prove 100% that their idea is what actually happened in the video.
I mean can you prove it that the object is appearing from vanishing point in front of the trees vs from behind the trees based on the video ? no you can't as you are as well missing that information.
I will leave that as a video recording anomaly, but it sure does look interesting.
I am gonna crop the original segment of the video and loaded to my drop box and post a link,
please if anyone is interested to farther debunk it go at it.
link to the original video folder below,
Dropbox - UFO Video
It depends what you mean by "prove". If you mean rule out any other possible explanation, then no. But if you mean, based on reasonable assumptions, demonstrate that the near-field explanation is more consistent with the video, then yes. There are measurable data in the video that you ignored, as I pointed out previously.
Apparent size, as indicated by the angle subtended by the object, is linearly related to distance from the camera. The rate of change of angle from the lens center indicates that it is moving towards the camera, but its apparent size remains too small for it to have been visible at the location of the trees. It would require a non-linear trajectory and a non-constant speed to account for the observed images.
So the question is the same old question that guides scientific explanation - do you take, as your working hypothesis, the simplest explanation of the data, or do you construct an unnecessarily complex explanation. Since this kind of phenomenon is quite well documented, and since your more complex explanation requires the existence of previously undocumented, and unphysical behavior, which would you lean towards?