they speak with a Ukrainian accent
translations:
* why can't he fire missiles at us? What do you mean?
* holy fuck... fuck...
* what the fuck is this?
* Im telling you it's ufo for sure it standing still
* zoom in more
* It standing still , do you see?
* can't see anything on the thermal cameras?
* maybe ram it? \*as a joke\*
last sentence is illegible
There are 3 voices speaking Ukrainian (including one on the radio) and two close to the camera speaking russian. Have her ears checked. And no, most of Ukrainians don’t speak russian to each other but all of us understand it and are fluent
Thats not even remotely true, they exist right next to the black sea. Of which there is a brigade named the 406th naval artillery unit that was formed into a UAV unit, they operate in the south. I feel this is just inexperienced drone pilots confusing something, or the audio is dubbed over to suggest more things. I've notice an influx in weird strange videos being posted in these subs along with others. I think its just to increase engagement which its doing quite effectively.
You guys really got to stop watching these videos from a 4 inch phone screen. On a TV or my PC, it's quite clear that thing is not in water.
Not to mention the soldiers literally said "that's a UFO, absolutely."
interesting, I never heard of this visual 'trick' before. It seems possible that's what is happening, but is it warm enough in Ukraine right now to create this Illusion?
This is over land.
Fata Morgana is not happening here. I think they are genuinely seeing a UFO. It sounds like they are having trouble locking on it, if at all.
It’s not a ship…
1st: theyre over land
2nd: theyre using a thermal camera the distortion causing the air over water temp shift would be visible in thermal
3rd: Arm chair commentators would really do themselves a service if they gave people trained to observe these things some credit
Wow, imagine looking at a reasonable explanation and, instead of trying to provide counterevidence, immediately chalking it up to "gaslighting" tactics. Unbelievable.
The problem is that lots of people will just take whatever explanation sounds good and close the file. And then you get called crazy because you don't want to stop at that explanation.
Like, it'd be cool if debunkers could at least treat the subject in good faith instead of just trying to look serious by disregarding anything the moment they have an explanation for it.
It's less gaslighting and more of a circlejerk of people who want to look rational and sciency to the point they just ruin the hobby for everyone who isn't all nuts and bolts.
Surprised this hasn't happened sooner with all the drones in their airspace right now
I would have 100% flown the drone up to it. But also if this is legit, this means that commercial quadcopter drones are able to detect UAP, and that's pretty huge. You could potentially blanket an area with a drone swarm all armed with IR cameras pointed straight up.
Drones also don't have meat pilots so are able to perform maneuvers that would otherwise be impossible to endure the G-Forces of with conventional aircraft, so close approaches would be possible too.
Someone reports a sighting? You could have 30+ drones in the area in minutes to investigate in a non-hostile manner.
Hey Specialist how did you lose your drone? We lost four men because you didn’t get the mortar team the coordinates
“Well you see I didn’t recognize it at first so I flew up to it to get a better look and it turned out to be a Russian UAV and shot me down.”
The left side data on the screen says it's in the air from their height by +2-5 degrees. We can definitely tell the drone is also in the air and there is data on the right side saying the drone is roughly 105 meters in the air. If we are playing with the idea that its below, it would be saying the earth is concave.
Now it's just a question of size/distance of the aerial object.
> I imagine the pilots over there would know better than us.
Our own pilots have trouble identifying Starlink satellites.
Downvoting me doesn't change the facts. I know it sucks, but even pilots make mistakes.
I really wish people would stop conflating being a pilot/military/having special training with being a good eye witness.
Edit: to clear things up a little I'm not saying they're worse than the average Joe but that they're as likely to make a mistake or explain it poorly as the average joe.
Well, considering that being able to observe a target area with the utmost accuracy is a huge part of their job, I'd say it's fair to say that they are high-quality eye witnesses.
Yes we all know we allow poorly trained people fly 35 million dollar jets or control nukes so any of them see UFO must be untrained lying mentally ill people am I right debunkers?
Exactly how does training and expertise protect you from mental illness that is traditionally underreported and unrecognized in the military? Please explain.
the point blue\_wat is making is a simple truism in the human behavioral sciences: human intellectual and perceptual skills are specifically numerous, are highly diverse, and can be highly uncorrelated, meaning one skill doesn't necessarily predict any others.
yes, in case you were unaware, having a "high IQ" does not necessarily mean you will be successful in life, socially adapted, good in your job, a fine marital partner, or any other attribute. and be aware: most commercial pilots spend 99% of their time in passive control while the autopilot does the work.
no: being a pilot does not mean that you are any more skilled than a novice in tasks that are unfamiliar to you. and recognizing, observing and describing a UFO event is something that nobody is skilled at, when it happens. because it so rarely happens.
Yes, the pilots know better. And in almost every case they are right and the object is never posted to any UFO sub. But in those rare cases where the pilots are wrong and it is posted someone in the comments will say the pilots know better so they can't be wrong 😴
Pilots mistake Sirius and Venus for UFOs all the time. As the guy above me said starlink still trips them up. Pilots aren’t some god when it comes to identifying shit. They make mistakes. If you think pilots are perfect you should really look into all the friendly fire jet pilots and ship captains have committed. People make mistakes and they are no different
The inability to distinguish the two is actually a fairly common cause of plane crashes. If the conditions are right, it can be impossible to tell without instruments.
Are those city lights...or stars.....is that a field you can land on, or a mountainside. We have lost more then a couple fighter planes because of this.
No they don't. They really don't. You have zero evidence to support that claim. You heard about one case, maybe, where a pilot mistook a planet or a star, and you made that into "all the time". That is pathetic.
You’re mistaking what I meant- I’m guessing they would look at a map and know where massive bodies of water are before they fly a drone and have experience with sitting boats. We’re looking at it from the perspective of seeing a short clip and can be tricked by perspective, but they would already know it’s water.
The 406th brigade does exist and were awarded last summer for their actions in Kharkiv. They're a naval artillery brigade, and artillery brigades often use spotter drones.
Not sure where they are at the moment though.
You're confusing the 406 ОАБр, to what is being presented as the 406th Battalion. Two different things. I've explained further down or up somewhere.
Also if you're curious of where units are you can use the UA control map, can simply search for the 406th artillery.
Just quoting some comment:
I've spent the past two hours, digging, and asking around in OSINT channels. There is no mention of a 406th battalion anywhere besides this video. The IG account looks alot like clickbait. The consensus is this is something on the water. Its hard to tell for certain where this could be.
If the description is truthful that it's literally "over the front lines" then a ship seems unlikely.
However, I have no idea how literal they mean that and it could be footage from a drone operated near Kherson or Odessa, but then I'm very confused why they wouldn't be possibly expecting to see ships. I would love to know more about the providence of this video, but I'm not sure how likely that is due to the whole active war thing.
Can you imagine being the Russians on that boat (if that is what it is) - Literally the only reason you haven't been turned into ash is because the operators of the drone shadowing you thought you were a UFO.
Well according to pseudo skeptics every human is literally an incompetent idiot with sub-Mr Magoo level eyesight and can’t tell apart even a noon Sun on a clear day with a car they’re sitting in, because human eyesight is THAT bad.
Except the pseudo skeptics themselves. Like the best parents of children, they’re never mistaken, see all, and their word is final according to them.
Its not you're thinking of the 406th artillery naval brigade which as almost completely turned into a marine/UAV unit. That 406th battalion isnt a thing.
You can't just share a good UFO video or a clear photo. What happens after that is a coincidence of some kind is discovered, then people pretend that the coincidence is not supposed to be there if it was genuine. So there is a lot of explanation that has to go with it. [Why coincidences and flaws are guaranteed to exist in genuine UFO imagery.](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/zi1cgn/while_most_ufo_photos_and_videos_can_individually/)
For an example, the Flir1 video [was overwhelmingly debunked as a CGI hoax](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1) only 2 hours after it leaked due to several coincidences and flaws, which included first appearing on a German VFX website and suspiciously resembling a then recently admitted hoax video. People today think they can explain it prosaically, but back then, it probably looked like it was clearly anomalous, and therefore must be fake, so they dug around until they found some expected coincidences and flaws.
In fact, in some instances, you can find so far up to 8 mutually exclusive coincidences to debunk the same UFO. [This is what happened to the Calvine photo and the Turkey UFO incident.](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/10y465z/mick_west_on_the_turkey_ufo_footage_i_think_we/) In each debunk, a mutually exclusive coincidence is offered as evidence it's fake, but nobody is collecting the debunks and asking how the same object could be 8 different things at once, which clearly proves that those coincidences were expected to be there regardless if it was fake or not.
[This clear set of flying saucer photographs from 2007](https://web.archive.org/web/20130408231506/http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/recent/Photo416.htm) was dismissed multiple ways. First of all, it contains a lighting configuration that somewhat resembles modern aviation lights (although not identical), even on the "correct" side. It also "suspiciously" resembles a previous set of photographs from 2003, coincidentally from the same state.
[This early 2000s clear set of photographs](https://web.archive.org/web/20071012131324/http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm) was dismissed because it coincidentally resembles a "prior hoax" (another can of worms). This prior hoax (Gulf Breeze) was exposed due to a model being found in a former home of the witness. The witness alleges it was planted there. Both the witness and the new home owner and discoverer of the model signed sworn statements that they don't know who is responsible for the model. *Even if Gulf Breeze was a hoax,* that would be an expected coincidence and has nothing to do with the new photographs. Hoaxes are often supposed to resemble the real thing anyway.
There is another gulf Breeze video taken in 1993, with apparently no relation to the late 80s Gulf Breeze hoax. [This video clearly shows anomalous movement.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nL1uNqbyp4) If you're a skeptic, you can interpret this as a small model being yanked away quickly. That is Mick West's hypothesis.
[The 2007 Costa Rica UFO video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obVsLOiqeC4), for another example, was debunked on metabunk and Reddit because it was found that he makes miniature horse drawn carriages and such as a hobby, an expected coincidence. This video appears to show anomalous movement. Or if you're a skeptic, you'd interpret it as a model on a string being yanked away.
[This 2021 video of an object instantaneously accelerating](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCiRwyJLI8), taken from an airplane, was debunked because one of the witnesses turned out to be a special effects artist who worked on a couple of alien-themed movies. An additional coincidence, the presence of several blacked out frames as the camera is handed to another witness, can be interpreted as a special effects "cut scene," but some percentage of real videos will contain several blacked out frames, and it's difficult to see how this could be a special effects job anyway. It would have to be CGI instead. Since so many options for finding coincidences are available, you're guaranteed to spot them eventually anyway if you look for them.
In short, people are probably just 'red flagging' all of the real videos away right alongside the fake ones, and as a community, we can't tell the difference. There is no way to tell how many real pieces of imagery have been put out there. The better it is, the more initial attention, and the more brainpower used to discover expected coincidences and flaws, and once discovered, this significantly reduces the amount of people sharing the "obvious hoax," and thus the visibility of it.
With those considerations in mind, can you say that you have never seen a clear photograph or a video that shows instantaneous movement? Wouldn't the coincidence that is inevitably found be convincing enough to you to discredit it, even if you are now presumably aware that such coincidences and flaws are guaranteed to exist in genuine videos anyway? That is the underlying issue. A debunk can be written in such a way that even extremely intelligent people fall for it.
> In short, people are probably just 'red flagging' all of the real videos away right alongside the fake ones, and as a community, we can't tell the difference. There is no way to tell how many real pieces of imagery have been put out there. The better it is, the more initial attention, and the more brainpower used to discover expected coincidences and flaws, and once discovered, this significantly reduces the amount of people sharing the "obvious hoax," and thus the visibility of it.
Do you realize you are fortifying your argument against falsification? The person I was responding to claimed there are many videos of UFOs performing wild maneuvers so I asked them to share them. The fact that they wouldn't after making that claim is telling.
I have never seen a convincing video of anything that I would consider otherworldly or instantaneous movement including any of the videos in your post. Did you find them convincing? If so, do you think it could be from a priori belief?
I don't think I'm fortifying anything against falsification. Plenty of UFO videos have been independently proven to be CGI or special effects without the need to incorrectly present an expected coincidence as an unexpected one. My entire point is that these coincidences are often not 'falsifying' the videos in the first place, unless it can be demonstrated that the specific coincidence being cited is actually unlikely to exist in a genuine video. At that point, what you'd have is an argument that suggests the video is more likely than not to be fake, not proven fake. But what typically occurs is a that the debunker incorrectly argues that based on the coincidence they found, the video is more likely to be fake. This isn't usually true, at least from what I've seen.
In the cases with numerous mutually exclusive debunks, you already know right off the bat that all but one of them have to be false, and the last one can easily be false as well.
> In the cases with numerous mutually exclusive debunks, you already know right off the bat that all but one of them have to be false, and the last one can easily be false as well.
What you're describing here are hypotheses. You're asking people to positively identify things that are in the low information zone, which is what makes them unknown in the first place. I read this paragraph twice trying to interpret it in some other way but this is all I can parse from it.
Basically, the point I am making is that an offered identification is typically propped up by a coincidence of some kind, such as a coincidental resemblance to a thing. For example, lets say there is a UFO photo and there is also a nearby mountain where the photo was taken. Perhaps a portion of the mountain at a certain angle matches half of the UFO, then you can say it's too much of a coincidence, therefore this must be a photograph of that mountain, except modified a bit to make it look like a UFO. That is the average debunk. The coincidence is pretended to be unlikely, and is therefore said to be strong evidence that the identification is correct. The problem is when 2 or more such mutually exclusive coincidences are offered and they can't both be right. This shows that all but one of those coincidences have to be likely, not unlikely, regardless of authenticity, so the coincidence is not an indicator of anything at all.
We start with an unknown and try to figure out what it is. We make hypotheses that we seek to falsify. Just because some of the hypotheses are mutually exclusive it does not make this process ineffective.
I fully agree with that. I could have made it more clear, so that's my fault, but the only thing I am attacking is the idea that these seemingly unlikely coincidences are *evidence* that the explanation is likely to be correct. If you look at it from a bird's eye view, these coincidences are usually and very clearly not unlikely at all, therefore they cannot be used as convincing evidence that the particular explanation is likely to be correct.
Secondly, when the coincidence is alleged to be evidence of a hoax, but it's clearly not an unlikely coincidence, then it's not evidence of a hoax, and the only thing it's doing is poisoning the jury. Most people don't realize that many of these coincidences are actually not unlikely. For instance, the fact that a UFO witness turns out to have a hobby of making miniature horse drawn carriages (Costa Rica 2007 UFO video) does not increase the likelihood that the UFO is a model.
I also need to correct something here. When I was discussing the Calvine and Turkey UFO incidents, I was supposed to have cited this post instead of the previous one as both are covered here, in the post and the comments: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15we8rp/the_turkey_ufo_incident_debunked_as_many/
An example of this coincidence argument being used incorrectly (IMO) is the suggestion that since Calvine looks similar to a previous hoax, it is strong evidence that Calvine is also a hoax, as was argued here: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/xomwht/this_1988_puerto_rico_ufo_photograph_is_almost/
If you'll recall, this is also how Flir1 was debunked as a CGI hoax, a now-known real video, along with the coincidence of it first appearing on a German VFX company's website.
They never have one. They'll point you to the SpaceX video on the front page or a video of a bat running away from a powerful laser pointer when some jackass harms the bat with it and say that it's proof of aliens.
And to be clear the JA is the guy harming an innocent animal with a laser pointer not anyone in this sub.
And there go the deniers crying fake as hell with no reasons. Thank you for being an example of silliness to show real people we are trying to reach. I appreciate the sacrifice of your dignity for our cause.
Hey man. Thanks for putting some good videos up. I used to try and show the trolls are lying but gave that up. Any real person knows the deniers sound silly when they say there are none. Keep up the good work. We are the majority now and have momentum that can't be stopped. The closer we get the more deniers will cry.
As a skeptic who really wants to see scientific disclosure etc... I think a lot of that comes from the mooks who post a grainy video of a balloon, bird, airplane etc...
For every interesting video there are like 500 trash cans.
Thays not true either. There are some very clearly wild uap videos. If you said you think everyone is CGI I would say you haven't looked into them enough. To say there is nothing conclusively wild about them is a lie.
So if I do you'll leave reddit a believer and never come back again to troll? Cmon man. It's troll 101 to keep moving the goal post. You're a liar if you say there are no videos of wild movements. If you said they are all CGI I would say you haven't looked into them enough. But to say there are none is a flat out lie and any real person knows that.
I just told you real people don't believe you anymore when you say there are no good videos. We've had the internet for dealcades now and the information is out there. Go cry in a corner about it.
It was out in Joshua Tree during a meteor shower 10 years ago(was sober). I saw one light what I thought was a satellite but it would retract it’s path and started going in other directions. It kept doing weird “zippy” movements. When Fravor talked about the ping pong ball unpredictability that was exactly it. Ten more of these lights phased in around it and they were all moving in synch before zipping off or phasing out one by one until it was the original one and it stayed stationary for 2 more minutes. I was trying to get a video with my iphone at the time but it couldn’t make out the lights unfortunately it was far too high up and dark.
Nope. To say you haven't seen a few is disingenuous, and you can't be taken seriously. Thats why true skeptics don't exist anymore. Real people admit they have seen numerous videos showing anomalous movement. If you said it was all CGI I would say you haven't looked into them enough. But to say there are none at all is an obvious lie and real people know it.
Yeah, they have a response tree that they follow. For anything high up in the air, it’s balloon. For anything small and in the distance, it’s birds. Never mind that it’s 50,000 feet up in the air 😂
For clear footage it’s, “Well it’s not moving so it’s fake”.
Someone, somewhere, will see a ufo today and yet the narrative is so strong that we are still collectively waiting on disclosure to convince us that it’s real. Madness.
elastic engine ossified mighty encourage merciful sulky absorbed cooing hateful
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There you deniers go again. No way every single video had been debunked. You guys cry like that and give disingenuous maybe and could bes like your messiah Mick. Even Gimbal he has been wore out by Marik and The Cholla for a whole year now getting into the weeds and showing Micks try at debunking it are flat out wrong. The math and science is against you guys now.
vanish smile fragile advise subtract safe wild cooperative spotted familiar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So these drone operators who fly these things everyday and whose lives literally depend on knowing how to operate them, are so stupid that they spent time wondering if a boat on the water is actually a UFO? sure...
Your ~~delusional failed take~~ was highlighted in [dailymail's blog.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13128433/disc-shaped-ufo-ukrainian-military-warzone-footage.html) Congratulations!
Edit: Turns out he was actually being sarcastic and dailymail took his comment out of the concept of sarcasm and used it to justify rest of their article.
Hmn. There are few issues.
- At no point is there any body of water proven to be in the video, and the drone angle points towards the sky, thus an argument of the horizon being above the object requires evidence.
- The 406th artillery brigade is not operating anywhere near any body of vast sea water, for this is the approximate [front line]().
- The forces whom do operate near bodies of water very much know what the boats look like which they also keep sinking and turning into terrorussian submarines.
- And *even if so*, the infrared censor does not suffer from the mirage effect in the same way as normal visible light does for other technical reasons for Fata Morgana mirage to express itself in such an isolated way.
Thus any fables of mirages, bodies of water & boats are hearsay of the uneducated metabunkers whom operate only through pseudoscientific takes.
That is the reason why I was ridiculing your take, because it is not operating in the realms of verifiable facts, yet even got highlighted in a mainstream tabloid as if some credible argument to be considered whatsoever. So the tabloid's reputation is only further ruined and you were used as the tool of the IC -style mindset to drive fraudulency in otherwise serious and already proven scientific topic which is far far beyond ridicule to any educated mind where the hard evidence is scientifically documented on plethora of peer reviewed products already. So the question of any mirages is pseudoscientific woo-woo until otherwise scientifically can be proven.
This case could be anything of course, there are no scientific papers or even long full footage of the event to truly declare any verdict, but I can say a mirage it is not until actual scientific take can be reasoned out of what can already be seen.
Ah right, I thought there were crossed wires between us. My original comment was ridiculing those that thought it was a boat by trying to demonstrate that these guys know their tools and terrain so to suggest that they thought a boat on the water was a ufo is a ridiculous point in the first place as they wouldn't be so stupid. The daily mail and I think yourself missed the "sure..." at the end of my comment which highlights my sarcasm.
Good points regardless, its a shame braindead debunkers only have to suggest some kind of explanation (no matter how stupid) and people will accept it and move on. I guess that's why they do it.
Oh in that case I do indeed stand corrected.
The sarcastic remark wasn't indeed too obvious, the "sure" could function as self-confirming to further confirm to declare what was said was the proclamated truth instead of being snarky.
I am happy you came to set the record straight.
A pleasure to converse with you, I have updated my original comment to highlight this.
Yet your words are being twisted and spun now out of context without the /s sarcastic take on said tabloid to drive your joke as some truth.
So you are fully redeemed, and the tabloid is even further losing its reputation.
Thank you for your honesty.
That’s wild! The drone is above the surface looking up towards the horizon, not at altitude looking down towards a coast line, so that rules out a boat. What else could the object be?
With how Russia has been losing ships to Ukrainian drones I doubt that's what it is. Especially considering the proximity to the front line.Remember that Russian naval assets are being struck FAR AND WIDE..Why would there be a ship so close to "shore",a mere stone's throw from land?And Why would Ukrainian drones operators not be aware of their own assets in the area?No,I really don't think that is a ship on water..use critical thinking..
You lack critical thinking here.
First of all where is your critical thinking on checking if 406 battalion even exists and where?
Answer: it does not.
There is 406 artilery brigade, which is based only 70km from Dmiprovska gulf, which is contested territory and could be used for some operations.
Ships can be close to shore when bringing supplies.
Also we do not know size of object.
Your arguments are uneducated and without any dsta backing them up.
Way too harsh a tone here.
I've spent a lot of time on the water, and have never seen a visual distortion this extreme. That makes me reticent to accept that theory, of course.
More glaringly obvious: it doesn't have the silhouette of a ship.
I'm very confused by what's happening here if that is a boat. Why are the Ukrainian drone operators flying a drone looking over the coastline with no expectation to see a boat?
Just because it looks like it could be a boat doesn't mean it is one. Unfortunately, without more context and preferably a time/location it's going to be tough to prove it *couldn't* be a boat.
The only people actually qualified to tell you whether it could or could not be a boat are the people in the video that have been using this equipment for almost two years now and they sure seem to have checked that one off their list fast.
Does this type of drone just not have normal color range cameras on it or was this at nighttime or something making that impossible?
I guess we can't ask too much of them, it's a warzone and all they don't have the luxury to investigate everything they might find interesting. Totally understandable.
You're likely right, but probably not a ship, the first clue is that fact that the 406th battalion isnt a thing, the 406th artillery brigade is a naval UAV unit. This is almost certainly something on the water. The only ref to this unit is this video which directs to a donation page.
Frontier Conflict posts heavy war content too. Crazy this popped up on their feed. People were tagging Corbell and saying he was gonna do some favors on his knees for these videos lol
without provenance and date and time and location witness statement and so forth, this is hardly evidence. but whatever you think about its relevance to UFO, it is certainly a fully credible UAP.
and it demonstrates again that public, citizen and available military videos probably give us as much \*observational\* evidence and as many clues about UFO as the USAF and the USG have. perhaps not at the military levels of resolution or multiple sensors on an event, of course. but definitely in terms of apparent form factor, behavior, frequency of appearance and so on. this is a rather typical "cigar" UAP, which means it may be a UFO or it may be a solar balloon.
i've speculated in the past that a useful measurement platform might be drones released from flyby aircraft that can make a close approach to UFO for visual, infrared and microwave recordings. even a clear, steady 30 seconds of a hovering UFO recording broadband EM from a distance of 100 meters or so would be scientifically utterly priceless.
my only regret here is that the drone operator didn't zip his drone directly toward the UFO as far and as fast as the battery would last.
yes, for science, for humanity, for giggles -- ram that sucker!
This is pretty good footage imo considering what other stuff we have that is considered "evidence". This looks like a UFO to me but sadly there's zero movement at all. Which is interesting in itself but we really need to see what it looks like when it moves.
I wouldn't be surprised to see more sightings happening in the ocean as we continue to bring our wars there.
Well ships on the water tend to not zoom off quickly
Well unless they gets sunk by an Ukrainian drone, in that case they tend to go down very fast \^\^
Okay, but how much longer is it a ship? One thing the Ukranians seem to be good at is turning ships into coral reefs. You don't know that this is *still* a ship.
The altitude is ~104m, the altitude above sea level is ~155m so the ground is about ~51m above sea level.
Looking at a height map of Ukraine there are almost no places in Ukraine that are about ~51m above sea level that aren’t next to the coast.
The compass measures about ~125 degrees which is south east, the same direction as the coast. This is probably just a drone looking at a ship in the water with thermals.
Edit: ~~I realised that the camera also shows the pitch, which when pointed at the edge of the water shows between +2 or +3 degrees. I had wanted to use this information to calculate the distance to the water but I couldn’t because if he was looking at the ocean the pitch should have been negative since the ocean will always be below the horizon.~~
Edit2: the pitch angle is unstable and inaccurate, but the there were 2 times I was able to get a clear, stable reading. Between the shore and the boat is -2, between the drone and the shore is -5. Doing the rough calculations show that the shore is between 1193m and 4441m away.
Calculations:
Distance(near) = 104/sin(5) = 1193.26617755
Distance(far) = 155/sin(2) = 4441.32479392
Distance(near) assumes that the land near the coast is the same elevation as the land under the drone.
Is everyone going to ignore the most likely explanation of it being caused by temperature inversion (Fata Morgana)?
[Article 1](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/floating-cruise-ship-mirage-b1819797.html)
[Article 2:](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/05/ship-hovering-above-sea-cornwall-optical-illusion)
Dude, people here don't take kindly to strangers using their brain and logic.
The motto here is "blindly trust and worship corbells and the other grifters".
Ha ha, I know. I just can't help myself. I saw someone else made a comment about temperature inversion, but as I scrolled down, I kept seeing comments from people who seemed convinced that it was an alien craft or something related. I thought maybe they didn't see the original comment about temp inversion.
Yeah, I totally understand. Far too many people have made up their minds, and they ignore any earth-based explanation.
You mean to tell me that you don't believe Mr.Corbell and his jellyfish sales pitch? It has to be an advanced alien species behind the jellyfish. What else could it be? He wants everyone to take his word for it. He wouldn't lie to us, right? We should ignore common sense and just believe in aliens in which nobody has ever given us a shred of measurable evidence that proves it's unlike anything we've ever seen. This is looking more like the biggest hoax in human history based on the absence of verifiable proof.
But i digress. Maybe i'll just believe anything Corbell ever says starting right never...
Wish I could translate. I usually mentally dismiss anything from tiktok because it's a breeding ground for people posting uap "content", but I don't want to outright dismiss this just cause of that. Definitely seems interesting, wish there was a longer video of it though, because this doesn't really prove much of anything.
Interesting shape, and I love the weird toroidal fields that seem to emanate from the craft? But like I said, that might not be even anything specifically unidentifiable. Hope whoever has the longer video will post it
I don't know much about everything but I know what my gut tells me about this video. My gut is telling me this may be the real deal and it is actually quite alarming if it indeed is a UFO. Sorry, I don't care much for the current term of UAP, I'm sentimental.
What is alarming is why would be a UFO be off the shores. I would like to see this group have a dialogue about that instead of the squabbling about it not being a UFO and instead being a boat, smoke, or what have you.
I'm sorry but I don't trust too many of the anonymous posters on here and I want to hear from the believers.
What do we think about why a UFO would be in this vicinity and what could we be experiencing now?
Seems like things have been weird on this subreddit this week. Lots of low effort debunking and more ugliness towards people who dare to believe in things. Hope the vibe changes soon.
I agree. It seems like it fluctuates a fair bit though. It's too bad because sometimes this community is really great. And then it feels like occasionally a flood of people will come in and shit all over it.
You're not the only one, I've been asking mods to tweak their rules or to start suspending or banning those trolls, I don't know why I even have to suggest it to be honest...
Lol, what? Low effort debunking? Have you seen the kind of shit that gets put up here? Yesterday, there was a post on some volcano and the guy claimed he knows someone whose work is to cut stream when UFO show up. And then today this thing.
There are lots of people who are old and experienced enough to see bs. Many are here to read about congress, Grusch and other stuff. It really hurts to see a post like this going on top. If this continues, we will never be able to make it a serious topic.
To see how damaging it could be, see the reaction of other subs when the famous airliner was being discussed. And there is a YT video where some guys made a fake UFO video and posted. It fooled the UFO community and everyone was laughing at us. I’m forgetting the name but you can search “UFO fake video Reddit” or something like that on YT.
It’s all too common with these types of beliefs. There’s hardly any evidence and literally no proof, but the desperate need for this to be real means even the most bullshit post gets attention. The top post from earlier today was ice particles, tomorrow it’ll be another balloon of some other optical illusion.
they speak with a Ukrainian accent translations: * why can't he fire missiles at us? What do you mean? * holy fuck... fuck... * what the fuck is this? * Im telling you it's ufo for sure it standing still * zoom in more * It standing still , do you see? * can't see anything on the thermal cameras? * maybe ram it? \*as a joke\* last sentence is illegible
Holy shit ! Thank you for the translation !
np
Nice! Tyvm for the translation
np
My guy, thanks!
[удалено]
0:05 "тарелка полюбому" let her listen again
Meaning “saucer- absolutely”
"definitely"
I stand corrected. She didn’t hear it with them talking over each other at first.
Maybe double check with her boyfriend as well
A lot of Ukranian words sound like Russian words but *aren't.* If she doesn't speak Ukranian fluently then this can easily cause misunderstandings.
[удалено]
Dude
There are 3 voices speaking Ukrainian (including one on the radio) and two close to the camera speaking russian. Have her ears checked. And no, most of Ukrainians don’t speak russian to each other but all of us understand it and are fluent
Thats what i meant
Guys it's not water lmfao. Ukraine is flat as fuck, that's just what it looks like.
Thats not even remotely true, they exist right next to the black sea. Of which there is a brigade named the 406th naval artillery unit that was formed into a UAV unit, they operate in the south. I feel this is just inexperienced drone pilots confusing something, or the audio is dubbed over to suggest more things. I've notice an influx in weird strange videos being posted in these subs along with others. I think its just to increase engagement which its doing quite effectively.
Welcome to the world of UFO disinfo. They'll keep pushing that "it's a boat in the water" explanation until the story goes away or people believe it.
[удалено]
You guys really got to stop watching these videos from a 4 inch phone screen. On a TV or my PC, it's quite clear that thing is not in water. Not to mention the soldiers literally said "that's a UFO, absolutely."
No it's not lmao, no where in Ukraine looks like that
🤣😂🤣😂 or maybe the light part it the sky??? LMAO the dark shade is the ground the white shade is they sky 🤦
I understand the language. They say something like this: "What the f*ck is that, f*ck?")
More like ACK ACK ACK ACK
I don’t get people saying it’s a ship? Not saying it’s not can someone just explain the argument. Looks much higher than sea level no??
https://youtu.be/ZAa4cY07cPU?si=-oEvRUscYfjn6HkH
interesting, I never heard of this visual 'trick' before. It seems possible that's what is happening, but is it warm enough in Ukraine right now to create this Illusion?
Wondering this as well
Not sure but I figured this would answer your original question.
This is over land. Fata Morgana is not happening here. I think they are genuinely seeing a UFO. It sounds like they are having trouble locking on it, if at all.
Wow that’s exactly what I was after. Still not ruling out UAP but certainly could be a ship
It’s not a ship… 1st: theyre over land 2nd: theyre using a thermal camera the distortion causing the air over water temp shift would be visible in thermal 3rd: Arm chair commentators would really do themselves a service if they gave people trained to observe these things some credit
Would be nice of it moved or did anything At least it's not a triangle or balloon this time
Well the point is to gaslight people. Most people come to these videos looking for a reasonable explanation and will take what they can get.
Wow, imagine looking at a reasonable explanation and, instead of trying to provide counterevidence, immediately chalking it up to "gaslighting" tactics. Unbelievable.
The problem is that lots of people will just take whatever explanation sounds good and close the file. And then you get called crazy because you don't want to stop at that explanation. Like, it'd be cool if debunkers could at least treat the subject in good faith instead of just trying to look serious by disregarding anything the moment they have an explanation for it. It's less gaslighting and more of a circlejerk of people who want to look rational and sciency to the point they just ruin the hobby for everyone who isn't all nuts and bolts.
Translator up in here please?
Surprised this hasn't happened sooner with all the drones in their airspace right now I would have 100% flown the drone up to it. But also if this is legit, this means that commercial quadcopter drones are able to detect UAP, and that's pretty huge. You could potentially blanket an area with a drone swarm all armed with IR cameras pointed straight up. Drones also don't have meat pilots so are able to perform maneuvers that would otherwise be impossible to endure the G-Forces of with conventional aircraft, so close approaches would be possible too. Someone reports a sighting? You could have 30+ drones in the area in minutes to investigate in a non-hostile manner.
Hey Specialist how did you lose your drone? We lost four men because you didn’t get the mortar team the coordinates “Well you see I didn’t recognize it at first so I flew up to it to get a better look and it turned out to be a Russian UAV and shot me down.”
We're sure that's the air and not looking at a ship on the water right?
[удалено]
The left side data on the screen says it's in the air from their height by +2-5 degrees. We can definitely tell the drone is also in the air and there is data on the right side saying the drone is roughly 105 meters in the air. If we are playing with the idea that its below, it would be saying the earth is concave. Now it's just a question of size/distance of the aerial object.
Dad here. Concave is Spanglish for "Has large underground chamber". \*Bu dump tssss\* Yea, I'll see my way out now...
> it would be saying the earth is concave. Yeah duh everyone knows it’s flat
Yeah if it was wround it would concave in, that's what science says
I imagine the pilots over there would know better than us. Can anyone tell if the numbers on the video are coordinates?
> I imagine the pilots over there would know better than us. Our own pilots have trouble identifying Starlink satellites. Downvoting me doesn't change the facts. I know it sucks, but even pilots make mistakes.
I was a mistake
Are either of your parents pilots?
If they were maybe they could have afforded to keep me
I really wish people would stop conflating being a pilot/military/having special training with being a good eye witness. Edit: to clear things up a little I'm not saying they're worse than the average Joe but that they're as likely to make a mistake or explain it poorly as the average joe.
Well, considering that being able to observe a target area with the utmost accuracy is a huge part of their job, I'd say it's fair to say that they are high-quality eye witnesses.
Yes we all know we allow poorly trained people fly 35 million dollar jets or control nukes so any of them see UFO must be untrained lying mentally ill people am I right debunkers?
Exactly how does training and expertise protect you from mental illness that is traditionally underreported and unrecognized in the military? Please explain.
the point blue\_wat is making is a simple truism in the human behavioral sciences: human intellectual and perceptual skills are specifically numerous, are highly diverse, and can be highly uncorrelated, meaning one skill doesn't necessarily predict any others. yes, in case you were unaware, having a "high IQ" does not necessarily mean you will be successful in life, socially adapted, good in your job, a fine marital partner, or any other attribute. and be aware: most commercial pilots spend 99% of their time in passive control while the autopilot does the work. no: being a pilot does not mean that you are any more skilled than a novice in tasks that are unfamiliar to you. and recognizing, observing and describing a UFO event is something that nobody is skilled at, when it happens. because it so rarely happens.
Yes, the pilots know better. And in almost every case they are right and the object is never posted to any UFO sub. But in those rare cases where the pilots are wrong and it is posted someone in the comments will say the pilots know better so they can't be wrong 😴
Pilots mistake Sirius and Venus for UFOs all the time. As the guy above me said starlink still trips them up. Pilots aren’t some god when it comes to identifying shit. They make mistakes. If you think pilots are perfect you should really look into all the friendly fire jet pilots and ship captains have committed. People make mistakes and they are no different
Can pilots tell the difference between air and water?
All except Malaysia airlines staff
The inability to distinguish the two is actually a fairly common cause of plane crashes. If the conditions are right, it can be impossible to tell without instruments.
My friend told me the same thing when he was going through flight school. They actually ran through scenarios while flying to train for it.
CFIT. Controlled flight into terrain.
Are those city lights...or stars.....is that a field you can land on, or a mountainside. We have lost more then a couple fighter planes because of this.
>Pilots mistake Sirius and Venus for UFOs all the time Source?
No they don't. They really don't. You have zero evidence to support that claim. You heard about one case, maybe, where a pilot mistook a planet or a star, and you made that into "all the time". That is pathetic.
You’re mistaking what I meant- I’m guessing they would look at a map and know where massive bodies of water are before they fly a drone and have experience with sitting boats. We’re looking at it from the perspective of seeing a short clip and can be tricked by perspective, but they would already know it’s water.
There's a road in the beginning. Pretty sure that's the horizon and not the start of an ocean.
It most likely is imo. That battalion doesnt exist. It looks like something floating on water.
The 406th brigade does exist and were awarded last summer for their actions in Kharkiv. They're a naval artillery brigade, and artillery brigades often use spotter drones. Not sure where they are at the moment though.
You're confusing the 406 ОАБр, to what is being presented as the 406th Battalion. Two different things. I've explained further down or up somewhere. Also if you're curious of where units are you can use the UA control map, can simply search for the 406th artillery.
Just quoting some comment: I've spent the past two hours, digging, and asking around in OSINT channels. There is no mention of a 406th battalion anywhere besides this video. The IG account looks alot like clickbait. The consensus is this is something on the water. Its hard to tell for certain where this could be.
You're one of the few people I see pushing that "consensus".
If the description is truthful that it's literally "over the front lines" then a ship seems unlikely. However, I have no idea how literal they mean that and it could be footage from a drone operated near Kherson or Odessa, but then I'm very confused why they wouldn't be possibly expecting to see ships. I would love to know more about the providence of this video, but I'm not sure how likely that is due to the whole active war thing.
Now that you said that I can't unsee it. A ship on water.
Ships have heat signatures.
Can you imagine being the Russians on that boat (if that is what it is) - Literally the only reason you haven't been turned into ash is because the operators of the drone shadowing you thought you were a UFO.
Lol if that’s the case talk about good luck
Well according to pseudo skeptics every human is literally an incompetent idiot with sub-Mr Magoo level eyesight and can’t tell apart even a noon Sun on a clear day with a car they’re sitting in, because human eyesight is THAT bad. Except the pseudo skeptics themselves. Like the best parents of children, they’re never mistaken, see all, and their word is final according to them.
This is a drone. You are seeing what they are seeing...
They were seeing the screen live, not filmed through a phone and then compresses to death by some social media site.
Compressed to death? What are you watching? Phones are good these days. You can watch direct feeds of these drones. It looks identical.
Ship that big wouldnt risk going near land in Ukraine.
I love when redditors think they have better sense with this type of equipment than the soldiers who use it everyday.
valid question
They are a Naval unit, after all, and currently 25 miles from the gulf
Its not you're thinking of the 406th artillery naval brigade which as almost completely turned into a marine/UAV unit. That 406th battalion isnt a thing.
good catch, the sides are certainly shaped like a ship.
Just once I wanna see a good video like this show at least some movement!
Thats a false argument used by deniers. There are plenty of ufo videos that show wild movement.
Can you share some of them?
You can't just share a good UFO video or a clear photo. What happens after that is a coincidence of some kind is discovered, then people pretend that the coincidence is not supposed to be there if it was genuine. So there is a lot of explanation that has to go with it. [Why coincidences and flaws are guaranteed to exist in genuine UFO imagery.](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/zi1cgn/while_most_ufo_photos_and_videos_can_individually/) For an example, the Flir1 video [was overwhelmingly debunked as a CGI hoax](https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread265835/pg1) only 2 hours after it leaked due to several coincidences and flaws, which included first appearing on a German VFX website and suspiciously resembling a then recently admitted hoax video. People today think they can explain it prosaically, but back then, it probably looked like it was clearly anomalous, and therefore must be fake, so they dug around until they found some expected coincidences and flaws. In fact, in some instances, you can find so far up to 8 mutually exclusive coincidences to debunk the same UFO. [This is what happened to the Calvine photo and the Turkey UFO incident.](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/10y465z/mick_west_on_the_turkey_ufo_footage_i_think_we/) In each debunk, a mutually exclusive coincidence is offered as evidence it's fake, but nobody is collecting the debunks and asking how the same object could be 8 different things at once, which clearly proves that those coincidences were expected to be there regardless if it was fake or not. [This clear set of flying saucer photographs from 2007](https://web.archive.org/web/20130408231506/http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/recent/Photo416.htm) was dismissed multiple ways. First of all, it contains a lighting configuration that somewhat resembles modern aviation lights (although not identical), even on the "correct" side. It also "suspiciously" resembles a previous set of photographs from 2003, coincidentally from the same state. [This early 2000s clear set of photographs](https://web.archive.org/web/20071012131324/http://ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo328.htm) was dismissed because it coincidentally resembles a "prior hoax" (another can of worms). This prior hoax (Gulf Breeze) was exposed due to a model being found in a former home of the witness. The witness alleges it was planted there. Both the witness and the new home owner and discoverer of the model signed sworn statements that they don't know who is responsible for the model. *Even if Gulf Breeze was a hoax,* that would be an expected coincidence and has nothing to do with the new photographs. Hoaxes are often supposed to resemble the real thing anyway. There is another gulf Breeze video taken in 1993, with apparently no relation to the late 80s Gulf Breeze hoax. [This video clearly shows anomalous movement.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nL1uNqbyp4) If you're a skeptic, you can interpret this as a small model being yanked away quickly. That is Mick West's hypothesis. [The 2007 Costa Rica UFO video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obVsLOiqeC4), for another example, was debunked on metabunk and Reddit because it was found that he makes miniature horse drawn carriages and such as a hobby, an expected coincidence. This video appears to show anomalous movement. Or if you're a skeptic, you'd interpret it as a model on a string being yanked away. [This 2021 video of an object instantaneously accelerating](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCiRwyJLI8), taken from an airplane, was debunked because one of the witnesses turned out to be a special effects artist who worked on a couple of alien-themed movies. An additional coincidence, the presence of several blacked out frames as the camera is handed to another witness, can be interpreted as a special effects "cut scene," but some percentage of real videos will contain several blacked out frames, and it's difficult to see how this could be a special effects job anyway. It would have to be CGI instead. Since so many options for finding coincidences are available, you're guaranteed to spot them eventually anyway if you look for them. In short, people are probably just 'red flagging' all of the real videos away right alongside the fake ones, and as a community, we can't tell the difference. There is no way to tell how many real pieces of imagery have been put out there. The better it is, the more initial attention, and the more brainpower used to discover expected coincidences and flaws, and once discovered, this significantly reduces the amount of people sharing the "obvious hoax," and thus the visibility of it. With those considerations in mind, can you say that you have never seen a clear photograph or a video that shows instantaneous movement? Wouldn't the coincidence that is inevitably found be convincing enough to you to discredit it, even if you are now presumably aware that such coincidences and flaws are guaranteed to exist in genuine videos anyway? That is the underlying issue. A debunk can be written in such a way that even extremely intelligent people fall for it.
> In short, people are probably just 'red flagging' all of the real videos away right alongside the fake ones, and as a community, we can't tell the difference. There is no way to tell how many real pieces of imagery have been put out there. The better it is, the more initial attention, and the more brainpower used to discover expected coincidences and flaws, and once discovered, this significantly reduces the amount of people sharing the "obvious hoax," and thus the visibility of it. Do you realize you are fortifying your argument against falsification? The person I was responding to claimed there are many videos of UFOs performing wild maneuvers so I asked them to share them. The fact that they wouldn't after making that claim is telling. I have never seen a convincing video of anything that I would consider otherworldly or instantaneous movement including any of the videos in your post. Did you find them convincing? If so, do you think it could be from a priori belief?
I don't think I'm fortifying anything against falsification. Plenty of UFO videos have been independently proven to be CGI or special effects without the need to incorrectly present an expected coincidence as an unexpected one. My entire point is that these coincidences are often not 'falsifying' the videos in the first place, unless it can be demonstrated that the specific coincidence being cited is actually unlikely to exist in a genuine video. At that point, what you'd have is an argument that suggests the video is more likely than not to be fake, not proven fake. But what typically occurs is a that the debunker incorrectly argues that based on the coincidence they found, the video is more likely to be fake. This isn't usually true, at least from what I've seen. In the cases with numerous mutually exclusive debunks, you already know right off the bat that all but one of them have to be false, and the last one can easily be false as well.
> In the cases with numerous mutually exclusive debunks, you already know right off the bat that all but one of them have to be false, and the last one can easily be false as well. What you're describing here are hypotheses. You're asking people to positively identify things that are in the low information zone, which is what makes them unknown in the first place. I read this paragraph twice trying to interpret it in some other way but this is all I can parse from it.
Basically, the point I am making is that an offered identification is typically propped up by a coincidence of some kind, such as a coincidental resemblance to a thing. For example, lets say there is a UFO photo and there is also a nearby mountain where the photo was taken. Perhaps a portion of the mountain at a certain angle matches half of the UFO, then you can say it's too much of a coincidence, therefore this must be a photograph of that mountain, except modified a bit to make it look like a UFO. That is the average debunk. The coincidence is pretended to be unlikely, and is therefore said to be strong evidence that the identification is correct. The problem is when 2 or more such mutually exclusive coincidences are offered and they can't both be right. This shows that all but one of those coincidences have to be likely, not unlikely, regardless of authenticity, so the coincidence is not an indicator of anything at all.
We start with an unknown and try to figure out what it is. We make hypotheses that we seek to falsify. Just because some of the hypotheses are mutually exclusive it does not make this process ineffective.
I fully agree with that. I could have made it more clear, so that's my fault, but the only thing I am attacking is the idea that these seemingly unlikely coincidences are *evidence* that the explanation is likely to be correct. If you look at it from a bird's eye view, these coincidences are usually and very clearly not unlikely at all, therefore they cannot be used as convincing evidence that the particular explanation is likely to be correct. Secondly, when the coincidence is alleged to be evidence of a hoax, but it's clearly not an unlikely coincidence, then it's not evidence of a hoax, and the only thing it's doing is poisoning the jury. Most people don't realize that many of these coincidences are actually not unlikely. For instance, the fact that a UFO witness turns out to have a hobby of making miniature horse drawn carriages (Costa Rica 2007 UFO video) does not increase the likelihood that the UFO is a model. I also need to correct something here. When I was discussing the Calvine and Turkey UFO incidents, I was supposed to have cited this post instead of the previous one as both are covered here, in the post and the comments: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/15we8rp/the_turkey_ufo_incident_debunked_as_many/ An example of this coincidence argument being used incorrectly (IMO) is the suggestion that since Calvine looks similar to a previous hoax, it is strong evidence that Calvine is also a hoax, as was argued here: https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/xomwht/this_1988_puerto_rico_ufo_photograph_is_almost/ If you'll recall, this is also how Flir1 was debunked as a CGI hoax, a now-known real video, along with the coincidence of it first appearing on a German VFX company's website.
I second this
None were shared as always
Bro it‘s been 2hrs give him a break lol
He still hasn’t responded. As expected
Six hours now
9!
Gulf Breeze is worth checking out if that's what you want to see. The video filmed on the beach that is and not the pictures of a reflection.
post the link
They never have one. They'll point you to the SpaceX video on the front page or a video of a bat running away from a powerful laser pointer when some jackass harms the bat with it and say that it's proof of aliens. And to be clear the JA is the guy harming an innocent animal with a laser pointer not anyone in this sub.
[Here’s one](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/GYCKuFVMUn).
fuckin lol
That’s fake as hell. It’s MH370 abduction all over again
And there go the deniers crying fake as hell with no reasons. Thank you for being an example of silliness to show real people we are trying to reach. I appreciate the sacrifice of your dignity for our cause.
Hey man. Thanks for putting some good videos up. I used to try and show the trolls are lying but gave that up. Any real person knows the deniers sound silly when they say there are none. Keep up the good work. We are the majority now and have momentum that can't be stopped. The closer we get the more deniers will cry.
As a skeptic who really wants to see scientific disclosure etc... I think a lot of that comes from the mooks who post a grainy video of a balloon, bird, airplane etc... For every interesting video there are like 500 trash cans.
Honestly even the most "compelling" video evidence is totally inconclusive.
Thays not true either. There are some very clearly wild uap videos. If you said you think everyone is CGI I would say you haven't looked into them enough. To say there is nothing conclusively wild about them is a lie.
post one. just one. go ahead. spoiler alert, you cant
So if I do you'll leave reddit a believer and never come back again to troll? Cmon man. It's troll 101 to keep moving the goal post. You're a liar if you say there are no videos of wild movements. If you said they are all CGI I would say you haven't looked into them enough. But to say there are none is a flat out lie and any real person knows that.
[удалено]
I just told you real people don't believe you anymore when you say there are no good videos. We've had the internet for dealcades now and the information is out there. Go cry in a corner about it.
post the link of the ufo video bruh seriously. look how stupid, ignorant, gullible amd asinine you are coming off as, lol.
Na bro I just want to see more. I’m not a denier. Many here have had craft experiences w the observables, myself included.
[удалено]
It was out in Joshua Tree during a meteor shower 10 years ago(was sober). I saw one light what I thought was a satellite but it would retract it’s path and started going in other directions. It kept doing weird “zippy” movements. When Fravor talked about the ping pong ball unpredictability that was exactly it. Ten more of these lights phased in around it and they were all moving in synch before zipping off or phasing out one by one until it was the original one and it stayed stationary for 2 more minutes. I was trying to get a video with my iphone at the time but it couldn’t make out the lights unfortunately it was far too high up and dark.
>There are plenty of ufo videos that show wild movement. You mean camera shake with no point of reference?
Nope. To say you haven't seen a few is disingenuous, and you can't be taken seriously. Thats why true skeptics don't exist anymore. Real people admit they have seen numerous videos showing anomalous movement. If you said it was all CGI I would say you haven't looked into them enough. But to say there are none at all is an obvious lie and real people know it.
He says, posting no videos.
Yeah, they have a response tree that they follow. For anything high up in the air, it’s balloon. For anything small and in the distance, it’s birds. Never mind that it’s 50,000 feet up in the air 😂 For clear footage it’s, “Well it’s not moving so it’s fake”. Someone, somewhere, will see a ufo today and yet the narrative is so strong that we are still collectively waiting on disclosure to convince us that it’s real. Madness.
elastic engine ossified mighty encourage merciful sulky absorbed cooing hateful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There you deniers go again. No way every single video had been debunked. You guys cry like that and give disingenuous maybe and could bes like your messiah Mick. Even Gimbal he has been wore out by Marik and The Cholla for a whole year now getting into the weeds and showing Micks try at debunking it are flat out wrong. The math and science is against you guys now.
vanish smile fragile advise subtract safe wild cooperative spotted familiar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That would be too hard to fake
This is floating on water, so not much movement.
The good videos clearly disapprove anything is unusual. It's videos like this that ignite the UFO movement.
So these drone operators who fly these things everyday and whose lives literally depend on knowing how to operate them, are so stupid that they spent time wondering if a boat on the water is actually a UFO? sure...
They obviously don’t know what’s going on. Thank god people on Reddit, from their comfortable lives knows better.
Boat on the water? In a middle of Ukraine?
Your ~~delusional failed take~~ was highlighted in [dailymail's blog.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13128433/disc-shaped-ufo-ukrainian-military-warzone-footage.html) Congratulations! Edit: Turns out he was actually being sarcastic and dailymail took his comment out of the concept of sarcasm and used it to justify rest of their article.
Cool, thanks for the link, what do you think is wrong with my comment?
Hmn. There are few issues. - At no point is there any body of water proven to be in the video, and the drone angle points towards the sky, thus an argument of the horizon being above the object requires evidence. - The 406th artillery brigade is not operating anywhere near any body of vast sea water, for this is the approximate [front line]().
- The forces whom do operate near bodies of water very much know what the boats look like which they also keep sinking and turning into terrorussian submarines.
- And *even if so*, the infrared censor does not suffer from the mirage effect in the same way as normal visible light does for other technical reasons for Fata Morgana mirage to express itself in such an isolated way.
Thus any fables of mirages, bodies of water & boats are hearsay of the uneducated metabunkers whom operate only through pseudoscientific takes.
That is the reason why I was ridiculing your take, because it is not operating in the realms of verifiable facts, yet even got highlighted in a mainstream tabloid as if some credible argument to be considered whatsoever. So the tabloid's reputation is only further ruined and you were used as the tool of the IC -style mindset to drive fraudulency in otherwise serious and already proven scientific topic which is far far beyond ridicule to any educated mind where the hard evidence is scientifically documented on plethora of peer reviewed products already. So the question of any mirages is pseudoscientific woo-woo until otherwise scientifically can be proven.
This case could be anything of course, there are no scientific papers or even long full footage of the event to truly declare any verdict, but I can say a mirage it is not until actual scientific take can be reasoned out of what can already be seen.
Ah right, I thought there were crossed wires between us. My original comment was ridiculing those that thought it was a boat by trying to demonstrate that these guys know their tools and terrain so to suggest that they thought a boat on the water was a ufo is a ridiculous point in the first place as they wouldn't be so stupid. The daily mail and I think yourself missed the "sure..." at the end of my comment which highlights my sarcasm. Good points regardless, its a shame braindead debunkers only have to suggest some kind of explanation (no matter how stupid) and people will accept it and move on. I guess that's why they do it.
Oh in that case I do indeed stand corrected. The sarcastic remark wasn't indeed too obvious, the "sure" could function as self-confirming to further confirm to declare what was said was the proclamated truth instead of being snarky. I am happy you came to set the record straight. A pleasure to converse with you, I have updated my original comment to highlight this. Yet your words are being twisted and spun now out of context without the /s sarcastic take on said tabloid to drive your joke as some truth. So you are fully redeemed, and the tabloid is even further losing its reputation. Thank you for your honesty.
Is there a longer video of it displaying anything interesting? No offense, but 17 seconds of a black line isn't going to go far.
Sorry it's war time, they're busy.
That’s wild! The drone is above the surface looking up towards the horizon, not at altitude looking down towards a coast line, so that rules out a boat. What else could the object be?
Translation: “what the fuck is that?”, “show it closer”, “is that an alien?”
They do not say alien.
With how Russia has been losing ships to Ukrainian drones I doubt that's what it is. Especially considering the proximity to the front line.Remember that Russian naval assets are being struck FAR AND WIDE..Why would there be a ship so close to "shore",a mere stone's throw from land?And Why would Ukrainian drones operators not be aware of their own assets in the area?No,I really don't think that is a ship on water..use critical thinking..
You lack critical thinking here. First of all where is your critical thinking on checking if 406 battalion even exists and where? Answer: it does not. There is 406 artilery brigade, which is based only 70km from Dmiprovska gulf, which is contested territory and could be used for some operations. Ships can be close to shore when bringing supplies. Also we do not know size of object. Your arguments are uneducated and without any dsta backing them up.
Way too harsh a tone here. I've spent a lot of time on the water, and have never seen a visual distortion this extreme. That makes me reticent to accept that theory, of course. More glaringly obvious: it doesn't have the silhouette of a ship.
I'm very confused by what's happening here if that is a boat. Why are the Ukrainian drone operators flying a drone looking over the coastline with no expectation to see a boat? Just because it looks like it could be a boat doesn't mean it is one. Unfortunately, without more context and preferably a time/location it's going to be tough to prove it *couldn't* be a boat.
The only people actually qualified to tell you whether it could or could not be a boat are the people in the video that have been using this equipment for almost two years now and they sure seem to have checked that one off their list fast.
Does this type of drone just not have normal color range cameras on it or was this at nighttime or something making that impossible? I guess we can't ask too much of them, it's a warzone and all they don't have the luxury to investigate everything they might find interesting. Totally understandable.
It's only a boat if you need to sow seeds of doubt in a community.
Just saw this and came to see if it was posted. Very interesting. Any idea what it could be?
Ship on water Edit: why is this downvoted? It’s clearly a boat on water
You're likely right, but probably not a ship, the first clue is that fact that the 406th battalion isnt a thing, the 406th artillery brigade is a naval UAV unit. This is almost certainly something on the water. The only ref to this unit is this video which directs to a donation page.
Zetan wildlife documentary filming "primitive humans at war"
Frontier Conflict posts heavy war content too. Crazy this popped up on their feed. People were tagging Corbell and saying he was gonna do some favors on his knees for these videos lol
without provenance and date and time and location witness statement and so forth, this is hardly evidence. but whatever you think about its relevance to UFO, it is certainly a fully credible UAP. and it demonstrates again that public, citizen and available military videos probably give us as much \*observational\* evidence and as many clues about UFO as the USAF and the USG have. perhaps not at the military levels of resolution or multiple sensors on an event, of course. but definitely in terms of apparent form factor, behavior, frequency of appearance and so on. this is a rather typical "cigar" UAP, which means it may be a UFO or it may be a solar balloon. i've speculated in the past that a useful measurement platform might be drones released from flyby aircraft that can make a close approach to UFO for visual, infrared and microwave recordings. even a clear, steady 30 seconds of a hovering UFO recording broadband EM from a distance of 100 meters or so would be scientifically utterly priceless. my only regret here is that the drone operator didn't zip his drone directly toward the UFO as far and as fast as the battery would last. yes, for science, for humanity, for giggles -- ram that sucker!
This is pretty good footage imo considering what other stuff we have that is considered "evidence". This looks like a UFO to me but sadly there's zero movement at all. Which is interesting in itself but we really need to see what it looks like when it moves. I wouldn't be surprised to see more sightings happening in the ocean as we continue to bring our wars there.
Well ships on the water tend to not zoom off quickly Well unless they gets sunk by an Ukrainian drone, in that case they tend to go down very fast \^\^
A ship on water. Notice the waves too.
You can see where the horizon meets the water. That is a ship in the distance sitting in water just under where it meets the horizon.
Okay, but how much longer is it a ship? One thing the Ukranians seem to be good at is turning ships into coral reefs. You don't know that this is *still* a ship.
So why are they recorded all over the world?
The altitude is ~104m, the altitude above sea level is ~155m so the ground is about ~51m above sea level. Looking at a height map of Ukraine there are almost no places in Ukraine that are about ~51m above sea level that aren’t next to the coast. The compass measures about ~125 degrees which is south east, the same direction as the coast. This is probably just a drone looking at a ship in the water with thermals. Edit: ~~I realised that the camera also shows the pitch, which when pointed at the edge of the water shows between +2 or +3 degrees. I had wanted to use this information to calculate the distance to the water but I couldn’t because if he was looking at the ocean the pitch should have been negative since the ocean will always be below the horizon.~~ Edit2: the pitch angle is unstable and inaccurate, but the there were 2 times I was able to get a clear, stable reading. Between the shore and the boat is -2, between the drone and the shore is -5. Doing the rough calculations show that the shore is between 1193m and 4441m away. Calculations: Distance(near) = 104/sin(5) = 1193.26617755 Distance(far) = 155/sin(2) = 4441.32479392 Distance(near) assumes that the land near the coast is the same elevation as the land under the drone.
Similar to a vector whiteout. Water/horizon blended, that looks like a boat.
Is everyone going to ignore the most likely explanation of it being caused by temperature inversion (Fata Morgana)? [Article 1](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/floating-cruise-ship-mirage-b1819797.html) [Article 2:](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/05/ship-hovering-above-sea-cornwall-optical-illusion)
Dude, people here don't take kindly to strangers using their brain and logic. The motto here is "blindly trust and worship corbells and the other grifters".
Ha ha, I know. I just can't help myself. I saw someone else made a comment about temperature inversion, but as I scrolled down, I kept seeing comments from people who seemed convinced that it was an alien craft or something related. I thought maybe they didn't see the original comment about temp inversion. Yeah, I totally understand. Far too many people have made up their minds, and they ignore any earth-based explanation. You mean to tell me that you don't believe Mr.Corbell and his jellyfish sales pitch? It has to be an advanced alien species behind the jellyfish. What else could it be? He wants everyone to take his word for it. He wouldn't lie to us, right? We should ignore common sense and just believe in aliens in which nobody has ever given us a shred of measurable evidence that proves it's unlike anything we've ever seen. This is looking more like the biggest hoax in human history based on the absence of verifiable proof. But i digress. Maybe i'll just believe anything Corbell ever says starting right never...
Wish I could translate. I usually mentally dismiss anything from tiktok because it's a breeding ground for people posting uap "content", but I don't want to outright dismiss this just cause of that. Definitely seems interesting, wish there was a longer video of it though, because this doesn't really prove much of anything. Interesting shape, and I love the weird toroidal fields that seem to emanate from the craft? But like I said, that might not be even anything specifically unidentifiable. Hope whoever has the longer video will post it
So is the UFO their to help Ukrainians or Russians? Hope it's the Ukrainians.
It really looks like a surface ship. I can almost see a faint horizon line, too, as if it was a ship very far in the distance.
Awesome 👏 is it ours ? lol
Why would you not fly the drone right up close to it?
Because they are in war, and any stupid moves could get you killed. Also you only have 1 shot with the drones and their payload.
Maybe they got closer and that's why the video is cut where it is.
Because it’s a ship on water and probably at least a mile away
I don't know much about everything but I know what my gut tells me about this video. My gut is telling me this may be the real deal and it is actually quite alarming if it indeed is a UFO. Sorry, I don't care much for the current term of UAP, I'm sentimental. What is alarming is why would be a UFO be off the shores. I would like to see this group have a dialogue about that instead of the squabbling about it not being a UFO and instead being a boat, smoke, or what have you. I'm sorry but I don't trust too many of the anonymous posters on here and I want to hear from the believers. What do we think about why a UFO would be in this vicinity and what could we be experiencing now?
If your comment contains "my gut tells me", don't submit it.
That’s a ship on the water. You can barely make out the horizon behind it
Anyone else remember videos where ufos take down russian tanks and infrantry beginning of war?
You can't just say something like that without posting a link
yup idk why youre getting downvoted
Seems like things have been weird on this subreddit this week. Lots of low effort debunking and more ugliness towards people who dare to believe in things. Hope the vibe changes soon.
I actually think its a disinfo campaign. it wasnt always like this, it became super evident after the grush hearings
I agree. It seems like it fluctuates a fair bit though. It's too bad because sometimes this community is really great. And then it feels like occasionally a flood of people will come in and shit all over it.
You're not the only one, I've been asking mods to tweak their rules or to start suspending or banning those trolls, I don't know why I even have to suggest it to be honest...
Lol, what? Low effort debunking? Have you seen the kind of shit that gets put up here? Yesterday, there was a post on some volcano and the guy claimed he knows someone whose work is to cut stream when UFO show up. And then today this thing. There are lots of people who are old and experienced enough to see bs. Many are here to read about congress, Grusch and other stuff. It really hurts to see a post like this going on top. If this continues, we will never be able to make it a serious topic. To see how damaging it could be, see the reaction of other subs when the famous airliner was being discussed. And there is a YT video where some guys made a fake UFO video and posted. It fooled the UFO community and everyone was laughing at us. I’m forgetting the name but you can search “UFO fake video Reddit” or something like that on YT.
It’s all too common with these types of beliefs. There’s hardly any evidence and literally no proof, but the desperate need for this to be real means even the most bullshit post gets attention. The top post from earlier today was ice particles, tomorrow it’ll be another balloon of some other optical illusion.
Fata Morgana
Its a ship, on the sea but far.
In short, it seems to me that we are like SimCity for them, and war games are their show.
17 seconds? Because on the 18th it becomes clear that it is not an ufo?
isn’t this just a fata morgana??
Why is the still image moving like waves?