Four days after the video dropped, it was posted on my metabunk forum that same day, ivan horn suggested its just a bug and created a simple 3d recreation of a one. Centimeter wide object moving slowly across the field of view. It seemed to fit – and initially i thought this was fine case closed, but then additional analysis commenced the next day january, the 14th somebody posted a video that claimed the object passed behind the distant ridgeline. That meant it traveled over three miles in two seconds. The day after that january, the 15th rob woodus who posts, as propellerhead, published a video that repeated the ridgeline claim. He did some more analysis that his head shows that parallax proved it was far away at the start and as it moved with the distant mountains, but not with the nearby trees. He said, i believe, ive proven it cant, be a bug and that its a sizable craft traveling over 9000 miles per hour and parallax, proves it. A lot of people found this rather compelling other people weighed in on february. The 18th point consciousness did some fancy motion tracking analysis, but didnt really use it for anything. He generally agreed with the ridgeline and parallax arguments and uh. He calculated the likely size and speed his conclusion was indeterminate, but he went 60 percent for it being some amazing technology super fast craft and more likely an alien craft back on metabunk, i pointed out that the object only vanishes for one frame and with the noise In the video this was probably just video compression, it also dropped out earlier.

Meanwhile, people started to discuss if it was a bird. We found a bunch of other similar videos. On february the 18th truth serum published a very long video, the most important part of which was calculating distance and speed from an assumed objects, size which seemed to rule out a bird then, on february 22nd, jay lamb raised some objections. Why didnt a 9 000 mile per hour craft ruffle the trees a bit? He suggested a bird might be a better fit that day on metabunk truth, serums video had prompted a discussion about the field of view and the frame rate and the calculated size and speed, and we mostly moved towards it being smaller than a bird on march. The 8th i agreed a bug was likely, but might also be something blowing in the wind like a seed or a bit of paper. Next month, on march, the 23rd propellerhead robotis updated his analysis with a video called beaver utah. Another way to see it where he now realized his parallax argument is not conclusive, because the object is moving and nor is the redline argument. Rob starts to look at things. I feel the view and how quickly things of different sides approach the camera. He doesnt do too much math, but he does do a lot of practical experiments and eventually he concludes that something small floating in the air cant be ruled out. You know it just floats in the air now am i saying thats what it is.

I just think that its neat that weve looked at this another way and we found another possible explanation back on metabunk the bug or something small hypothesis remains strong. We also find a few more examples in july and later in october, that seemed to support it. On september, the 18th. The discovery channel featured the video on episode 7 of contact, but they didnt really add anything new with their analysis, then, on november 2019, rob woods took a trip to the side of the video and noticed how much stuff was floating in the air bugs seeds etc. Some of which you can see in this video we seem to make him move a lot closer to the small object hypothesis, because it is a wild natural place. You know theres a lot of stuff in the air. I really think its possible that the utah video was something that was in the air and dont have a way to prove that, of course, but uh im glad. I came out here to take a look at it myself and now, two years later, im starting to make this video – and i asked rob – rob whats your current thinking on what this is. You seem pretty open to being something in the air like a burger or seeds during this trip. What do you think now youve had more time to reflect on it and he replied: hey mick, i think its poplar fluff and he also noted his mistake with a parallax argument.

So it seems like ivans original estimate was correct. It was just a small object, close to the camera, a bug or a maybe a seed and now hes shaking out all the objections. Its case finally closed, but why do people still think this is something well yeah. Look at the view count on the videos. The first video is released by brian hanley and he got over a million views. I see the next one, which was just the raw footage. Brian then went on to promote robs first, two videos with stunning new analysis. Debunks claim the utah ufo was a bug. It reached 9 000 miles per hour, which was just robs first video with a voiceover by brian that got over a quarter of a million views and robs video itself got another 60 000. brian did this with robs? Second, video and he got 132 000 videos and he posted some more videos which were just mostly irrelevant points and ridiculously enhanced videos. But even those got thousands of views. Ryan didnt publish robs third video where he acknowledged his mistakes and embraced the small object hypothesis. But he does have an hour and a half discussion with rob where they show the fourth one and discuss the topic kind of dancing around a bit, keeping the door open, but yeah thats really irrelevant, because it only got 1 700 views and robs last two videos. The correct ones got around 10 000 views combined less than two percent of the views of the first two, the incorrect videos.

So basically, lots of people have seen the video and the original supposed proof that it was a large, fast moving craft, but hardly anyone has seen their attractions. Hardly anyone has seen the better analysis that shows its just a small, slow object. The fun theory beats the boring theory, even when the boring theory is correct. So lets finish up with a quick explanation of how you can replicate the analysis yourself. First of all get the raw footage. The original video is a 1.3 gigabyte file, its 1080p resolution, its 60 frames per second and, if youre, looking at anything else, youre going gon na have problems with the ridgeline obscuration and possibly the speed analysis from counting frames. First, the ridgeline issue zoom in and increase the contrast, a bit then go through one frame at a time. The important thing to note is that it only vanishes for one frame under the ridgeline, its small and theres, a lot of noise, so its quite possible its just compression dropout, especially as its just one frame, and especially as it drops out earlier, the parallax argument. We dont really need to address, as it assumes a stationary object, and this is moving rob made the argument and then quickly dropped it with this third video, then size and speed. We know the field of view is about 40 degrees, so thats. The angle that you can replicate the video with in google earth, we know the width of the video is 1920 pixels, which means the focal length of the camera is 1920 divided by 2, divided by tan of 40.

Over 2 degrees is 2 638 pixels. Well, use this in a second, then we take 10 frames of the video where we can see. The object clearly fly in a straight line towards the camera. We measure the height in pixels at the start and the end of the section when it goes from six pixels to 20 pixels. Now, if we knew the actual height, we could use these pixel heights to calculate the distance to the object, its just the height times. The focal length of pixels divided by the height in pixels, we can do this for both points and get the distance traveled divide that by the time, uh. 10. 10 frames. Being a sixth of a second, and you get the speed since we dont know the height. I made a spreadsheet, letting me put in different heights and calculating the speed uh. We want something thats flying or blowing in the wind, and we know the drone is moving, maybe 30 miles per hour so around that speed works and it turns out something under one. Centimeter around a third of an inch gives us a speed of around 30 miles per hour, so that fits very well with something small. A bird would probably be well over 200 miles per hour, which seems unlikely so id go with a bug or a seed. We could also do similar math to calculate the motion perpendicular to the cameras line of sight, and that comes out to be about five miles per hour like breeze, speed and thats.

Really all there is to it is it possible that it was a 4 000 mile per hour craft that made no sonic boom and nobody noticed it sure, but a bug fits best and its the simplest explanation by far so lets go with that one first, especially As rob noted theres a lot of stuff in the air, well, thanks for watching, if you want to see more videos like this, please subscribe.